On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:39 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 12:03 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:As a standalone observation, perhaps -- some desktop users often don't
> The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
> three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
> turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux
> distributions, as desktops tend to need to run the latest and greatest for
> as far the latest and greatest lets them.
>
> Does that make sense?
want old, stagnant code; they'd prefer the latest bells and whistles.
But it makes no sense when considered in conjunction with your apparent
desire for an old, stagnant version of Fedora.
What makes you think it would be any different?
It's not exactly difficult or problematic to update from one version of
Fedora to the next. I do it on each of my servers at least once a year
(I usually skip a release, but not always). And those are mostly
headless, remote boxes.
If you want new stuff, run Fedora and do a fairly painless update
annually. If you want old stuff, run Centos and update less frequently.
I don't see any need for a middle ground.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Out of curiosity, don't we have an Extended Life Cycle Fedora version called Red Hat Enterprise Linux and/or CentOS and/or dozens of other similar distros?
Why duplicate efforts? Just so it goes under the name "Fedora"?
--
Ing. Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno
Desarrollador de Sistemas Abiertos
Sitio: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
