On 01/25/2012 03:48 AM, drago01 wrote: > > Exactly releases have the advantage of being a well tested set of > updates where you have a window to decide whether you want to update > yet or not. > So I don't see what a rolling release gains really. If you always want > to run the latest and greatest run rawhide (and help make it usable). There seems to be some confusion about this - rolling releases have dev and testing just like periodic releases - and there's no reason at all they cannot get at least (if not more) testing than a chunky release. Centos/RHEL et al are antipodal to a rolling release - they have lagging updates - languishing kernel and ancient apps after a while .. a rolling release stays pretty current all the time ... quite a bit different really. An enterprise may want a LTS kernel - and the kernel team does indeed offer that - the long term stable kernel is now in the 3.x series. A rolling release can offer LTS kernel if there is desire for that too. For enterprise setting - as I said earlier in the thread, its likely many would rather have series of smaller updates than 1 gigantic update every 2-3 years ... the latter can be unpleasant and disruptive. Doing it once a quarter (say) on the other hand and dealing with small number of changes is far more desirable and less disruptive. I'd hazard a guess that anywhere software is developed for in house use follows exactly this route - whether the production rollout is monthly or more or less - and internal dev is almost always rolling. There is every reason to believe that fedora (and RRHEL = rolling RHEL heh heh) would be an improvement and certainly no less stable than what we have now. In fact if this route was taken, I'd guess this would be the killer distro ... gene -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
