Fedora vs RedHat

[Les Mikesell]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> 
> And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora.

And perhaps the only point.

> Are you under
> the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
> mainstream desktop distribution? 

No, I was under the impression that it was the development towards the 
next RHEL release.  As it has been through FC1->RHEL3, FC3->RHEL4, 
FC6->RHEL6 with almost no surprises, almost replicating the old 
X.0->X.2[->X.3] progressions.  But I don't see current changes that make 
sense for a future EL.

> If you chose a distribution with a quick version turnover, and you
> expect "long, smooth transitions", there is something wrong with
> your judgment. Or are you trying to say that ALL Linux distributions
> should strive for stability above all else?

No, I'm saying that to produce something usable, the development cycles 
should have infrequent big discrete jumps, followed by fixing all of the 
things that these inevitably break, and this time needs to overlap with 
everyone adjusting the applications they run to the changes.

 > You keep complaining
> that Fedora is not meeting your goals. Did you ever stop and think
> that maybe that is because the goals of the Fedora community are not
> the same as your goals? Fedora seams to be meeting a lot of people's
> goals.

Where are people using fedora?  How many?

> So if these are not your goals, maybe you should look
> elsewhere for a distribution that meats your goals, instead of
> beating your head ageist the wall trying to change the goals of the
> rest of us?

Basically I'm just wondering out loud where the next server distribution 
is going to come from.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com