On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:31:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >No, RHEL has a too long innovation cycle. What I need is something > >like the Fedora release (innovation) cycle, together with a RHEL-like > >support cycle. > > And redhat decided that these 2 items, short innovation cycle + long > support cycle, are mutually exclusive. redhat would end up "supporting" > 5-6 releases (going back ~3 years @ ~ 6 month innovation cycle), which > would be unmanageable. Is that really what you want? Yes, it is what I want. But obviously nothing Red Hat does provide (anymore). I'm not complaining about that fact, it just explains why I have a problem now and a working Fedora Legacy is the only hope I have allowing me to stay with RH/Fedora. > Besides, IMO, RHEL is pretty good when it comes to innovation too. Are > there features missing from RHEL that you need? It's not necessarily features. When I (re-)install a computer today, I don't want a general software release level which is a year old (or even more, RHEL4 isn't on the horizont yet as far as I can see). And exactly this is one of the motivations of Red Hat for Fedora, as stated by Red Hat themselves. Regards, Daniel
