On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson: > > Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to > > buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw > > it away and buy a new computer with Windows Y on it. Red Hat expects > > something similar for RHEL - they don't expect people to upgrade systems > > from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6 on the fly. Corporations spend *years* planning OS > > migrations, which usually involve buying new hardware, not upgrading > > existing systems. This is an implicit acknowledgment that upgrades are > > just not a great way to do things. I don't think we can realistically > > expect Fedora to do it massively better. If you're going to do stable > > releases of your operating system, it just doesn't make a lot of sense > > to make people upgrade every twelve months. If you're going to have > > stable releases, you should maintain them long enough that people don't > > really rely on the upgrade function. That seems to be how the big boys > > do it. If we can't do that, are the stable releases really achieving > > much? > > look below, i prove you the opposite Please keep in mind the overall argument I'm making here. I'm not interested in trivial point-scoring. I have machines that have been upgraded for a long time too. Your mail doesn't really speak to the higher level questions here. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
