Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > If we are not planning on having Fedora as a stable server, we should > not release a server variant. If we are going to do desktop and server > variants, we should put some incrementally more effort into actually > have something useful in each of these variants rather than just a > different bunch of packages and stop going back and forth on what we are > trying to do. So, the only differentiation that's possible for a Server is the lifecycle? I don't buy that. How about 'starts services XYZ by default that don't start on the desktop' (think: mdadm, etc.). 'Easily installs in a minimal fashion.' 'Doesn't always boot in runlevel 3'. If the only thing that our Fedora 'server' users want is for us to maintain it longer, that means perhaps we're *already* hitting that market well and don't need to make changes. Bill _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
