Good bye

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at
Mon Feb 4 13:56:46 UTC 2008

Kelly Miller wrote:
>> That should be the upstream author's designation, shouldn't it?  Does 
>> the mozilla group still even admit that firefox 1.5 exists?  What 
>> about the beta dovecot that was shipped in RHEL4 and never updated to 
>> the release version?  Complaints about the old bugs kept showing up in 
>> the upstream mailing list years after the stable release, confusing 
>> everyone.
> Wait, wait, wait.  You were complaining about Fedora being too far ahead 
> and being unstable, and now you're knocking RHEL for being too far 
> behind?  What exactly do you want?

I'd like to be able to keep running a well-tested kernel and device 
drivers on hardware where it already works with continuing security 
updates that don't break the interfaces.  The system libraries and 
anything likely to cause the machine to crash should be equally tested 
and stable.  Having an optional newer kernel to be used with newer 
hardware would be a plus but not a requirement if the version cycle is 
less than 2 years (RHEL/CentOS are fine in this respect).  Then 
optionally, it should be possible to install current versions of 
applications into this stable OS to get up to date features without 
making it likely that you will crash the machine - and having installed 
them, they should track updates like the rest of the system.

> I'm starting to think that the guys who said you simply want a distro 
> custom-tailored to your exact specs are right.  What would satisfy you, 
> a distro with all the latest versions that doesn't have any bugs in it 
> or something?

Having compatible stable, unstable, testing, repositories might work.  I 
believe another distro uses that approach successfully but has the 
disadvantage on not following a release schedule to help users decide if 
they should wait for the next stable release or deal with less stable 
things for features they need.

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at

More information about the fedora-list mailing list