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@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
