yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

[John McBride]

Just curious...what is the rationale of forcing new installs every 6 
mos. as opposed to having some type of "yum flavoring" like 
debian...unstable, testing, stable type of thing? Then just have 
"fedora" and a "fresh" set of cd's (requiring less download for update 
than an older set).

The reason I ask is more and more people seem to be saying "fedora is 
the equivalent of debian unstable"...but it seems to me that fedora was 
portrayed as a usable desktop/server system when the project was started.

If this is not considered "reasonably stable software" and the only 
choice is RHEL, well, I don't like it. I think that's an awfully large 
gap to fill.

My personal experience is (having used at least three distros for months 
or years apiece) fedora seems to be pretty usable and likable. Just not 
sure I like the "wipe and reinstall" every six months.

I'm sure your opinion may differ...not that it takes that long to wipe 
and reinstall, but redoing all the NIS, samba, cvs, dhcpd, etc. every 
six months is probably a drag on admins.

---
John