FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support
Jan Visser
jan.visser at tiscali.nl
Sat Jul 9 12:29:08 UTC 2005
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:27, Richard Kelsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I still stand by my claim that FC4 fails the intentions of the
>>>> project. Nevertheless, I know it will be fixed eventually, perhaps
>>>> FC5.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> But you could bet that it would not be fixed if it wasn't released in
>> its current state so people could fix it. That's the point of the
>> fedora releases - it is supposed to meet the usability intentions
>> by the *end* of a release, when the effort shifts to a new batch
>> of code and the updates to this one stop. Since there are 3 prior
>> releases you can get a pretty good idea how this works by looking
>> back at the updates that made the other versions usable.
>>
>> --
>> Les Mikesell
>> lesmikesell at futuresource.com
>>
> Actually, you get a far better idea from looking at the RHEL releases.
> Upgrades from say RHEL 3 to RHEL 4 are not recommended nor were they
> recommended from 2.1 to 3. To "ensure a consistent user experience" Red
> Hat recommends a clean install. Given this, is it really that
> surprising that upgrades from FC3 to FC4 are at best marginally supported?
>
> Now, take a step back and consider that Red Hat will continue to support
> a version of RHEL for something like 5 years. If RHEL 3 fully supports
> a particular hardware platform, what incentive do you as a user have to
> upgrade to RHEL 4? Other than, "Oh, cool. I'm running the latest
> version of <fill in the blank>?" This is especially in the corporate IT
> world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> This is in marked contrast to a certain company in Redmond, WA that
> wants to keep everyone upgrading to the latest and greatest version
> mainly because they've sold their product based on a different support
> model that costs them for every year they continue to support an older
> version. Finally, consider all of the things that can go wrong on an
> upgrade (e.g., third party packages) and the support costs associated
> with trying to provide a "consistent user experience." Red Hat has all
> sorts of incentive to keep people on the version of RHEL that they
> bought and a lot of reasons for discouraging people from upgrading for a
> given piece of hardware.
>
> BTW, I'm not complaining. I have an Athlon 1700+ box that I use for my
> gateway/server and it does just fine with White Box Linux 3. There is
> really no reason for me to upgrade it to WB 4 since WB 3 mirrors RHEL 3
> and continues to be fully supported. It has nothing to do with cost and
> a lot to do with, "What do I get that's better after an upgrade?"
>
What is more similar to RHEL 4 ? CentOS or WB?
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list