On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 10/15/2009 02:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that.
No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source
of misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is
what results.
If we want to change our goals then we should do that.
Oh, okie, sorry for the misunderstanding!
You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else:
Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos.
I thought about this seriously. I tried to imagine myself using CentOS. I
don't think it would work for me. I know it seems like I'm asking for a tall
order, both stability and the latest technology. But I'm not asking for
complete stability. I'm asking for just-enough stability.
Fedora release today:
stability [=====_______________] orange
latest technology [====================] green
CentOS (my perception):
stability [=================___] green-yellow
latest technology [=======_____________] yellow
What I want:
stability [==========__________] yellow
latest technology [================____] green-yellow
Should I be less stubborn about using Fedora? Am I making a mess of this
thread? :(
I think the problem is that we'll get yelled at on the other end:
"you're holding fedora back! What happened to latest and greatest?!"
and
"If people want stability they should go use rhel!"
Like we have gotten whenever the subject of more stability has come up.
-sv
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
