On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > If you mean a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6" then nobody who knows anything >> > is going to give you an answer because it would be unlawful to do so in >> > the USA (and most countries) as it would involve material information >> > about un-announced products of a publically traded business. >> >> I didn't want so much to know when it will be released, as only if >> it's late, and by how much. > > If a product hasn't been announced and may or may not exist how can it be > meaningful to ask if it is "late". Well, the term is no boudt not quite appropriate, but you can figure out if the development period is stretching or shrinking and appreciate if it would make sense trying to meet the 2 year deadline proposed by Shuttleworth. When I first wrote about Distrowatch' s approximations, I thought it couldn't. Since you have a "little bit of experience" in development :) do you think that developers -- maybe mainly application developers? -- would benefit from this deadline for downstream releases(1)? Debian's "ready when it's ready" developers wouldn't appreciate much, I'm afraid, but some agree that they must work towards more (fixed? fixe, in french) development periods. (I don't care much about you commenting the rest of my post, but I'd be interested in getting your opinion on this.) (1) The weird thing here is that Ubuntu server is the upstream edition from Debian, which is an upstream distro itself. The case of Fedora/RHEL is different. Though it borrows from testing,the case of Ubuntu standard edition vs Debian is pretty much the opposite of the Fedora/RHEL. My feeling is that it imperative that the directives given here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision be followed very strictly. Sorry, for the digression. I'm thinking aloud about my next post on Corbet's article. >> Enterprise users don't *have to* upgrade but, if they get new >> hardware, I suppose they find it nice not to have to install too old >> an OS. > > Often the reverse - they have problems finding suitable hardware to keep > running their old OS, which is often what they want to do. This is one > reason virtualisation is so appealing - even if they need a new OS at the > bottom layer all their app layer stuff can run virtualised under the old > OS build. Dunno... I had no problem installing Fedora 11 and preupgrade worked wonderfully for 12. On my desktop :) For enterprises, upgrades are steeper but, someday, they have to be made. Isn't it, the more they wait, the hardest the upgrade? IOW, though virtualization eases the pain, is waiting to upgrade a sensible choice or just plain good old procrastination? Hummm... I suppose every case is different. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
