On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:25:08 +0100, Christopher Brown <snecklifter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown >> <snecklifter@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying >>> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are >>> trying to do) is doomed to permanent failure. >>> >> >> I love your argumentation behind this statement; >> >> Why do you think it's doomed exactly? Is it reasoning following the past >> Fedora Legacy initiatives (and failure), or is there anything new? > > That plus the fact that you have Red Hat, the major backers of Fedora, > producing a distribution that is geared towards long term support for > their clients. Hence any initiative to increase the length of time > Fedora is supported will not (I believe) receive anything more than > lip service from RH. I completely understand that and it makes > financial sense. > "lip service" doesn't translate very well but I think I got the clue; If you're saying that Red Hat would choose to not support this initiative for whatever their reasons, may be, then so be it. I can't control what they do and I wouldn't want to. I can control however what I do with or without Red Hat's blessing. > I was simply trying to identify what the requirements are for LTS on > Fedora. I think simply saying "Fedora needs LTS" is doomed as the past > has proved. "Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - > George Santayana > I'm too eager to respond with similar phrases as put onto the Feature wiki page; if the difference between the long term support model for RHEL and an extended life cycle model for Fedora isn't clear enough, then how can I explain the added value of a commercial company backing it's product, stable API/ABI offerings, hardware and software certifications, a phone number, the differences between 7 years or 19 months, desktop environments vs. enterprise solutions, prolonged availability of security updates (only!) vs. prolonged application support (including security updates), and the difference between 19 months and 3 years? > The sooner Fedora gets out of its identity crisis the better. I wholeheartedly agree, but it's a completely different discussion. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
