On 1/21/2011 8:55 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> fedora "become"
> crazy, Mike? The beginning of '06, when I went to SuSE, I already knew
> that it was bleeding edge, and that wasn't just my opinion, but the
> opinion of a number of folks I know, whose technical expertise I respect,
> including some guy who's initials are ESR (his politica are another
> matter, but that's OT).
Bleeding edge or not wasn't quite the point - the problem was that there
was never an attempt to converge the changes to stability, just a
sequence of wildly different changes in every release. In the history
leading up to that, the pre-RHEL versions of RH would have an X.0
release that everyone know would be buggy, and subsequent X.1, X.2
versions that were increasingly stable. And you could sort of relate
the X.2 versions to Microsoft releasing 'service pack 2' for a product
in that you really didn't want to use anything before that for anything
but testing. The first few RHEL releases sort of looked like the same
pattern where there would be 2 fedora versions replacing the X.0, X.1
RH's with the 3rd in the set being RHEL, but it didn't stay that way
very long and quickly got to the point where is wasn't worth even
testing on fedora because things would just be completely different in
the next release and there was no effort to maintain hardware
compatibility or user data across the upgrades - or sometimes even for
minor updates. I had a fairly mainstream IBM box refuse to boot an
update kernel mid-fedora 5 or so.
And before someone else points it out, I know RH8 and RH9 didn't use the
.0 minor number (perhaps to avoid the buggy connotation) but they were
really more fedora-like and broke more things than users had come to
expect in the the RH tradition.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
