On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:40:37 +0100, Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen<kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > No, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. You say a market for this > is the corporate desktop, but a government department I work with runs > their scientific desktops on RHEL 4. They have a lot of in-house apps > that are known to work on that platform. There is absolutely no sense > in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that > version's EOL is in sight. > You just made (part of) my point, I hope you realize: > There is absolutely no sense > in expending resources on switching to a newer version until that > version's EOL is in sight. Thanks! Also, note that one example of a corporate environment that runs Enterprise Linux grade distributions on their desktop systems does not make the rest less true. And before anyone else is going to say it; I bet there's dozens if not hundreds if not thousands if not millions of similar environments happy to run with the Enterprise Linux distributions out there. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
