On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:20 PM Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ben Rosser (rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:55 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From what I have talked with in the past.. 3 years is their bare > > > minimum and 7 is their what we really want. It usually takes the > > > vendor about 3-6 months of work to make sure the OS works on their > > > hardware without major problems and then they want people to buy > > > support contracts for 3-5 years where the number of problems needed in > > > year 3-5 are none. [This means that they want to have Fedora N for 3-6 > > > months before their laptops ship with it. So you ship them a frozen > > > preload before you release to public. They also want any shipped to > > > 'last' for the warranty cycle because trying to deal with update > > > questions when N eol's in the middle costs them a lot.] > > > > If 7 years is what manufacturers really want, then it sounds like > > CentOS is much better positioned to be get shipped on laptops than > > Fedora. Instead of working on a new "Fedora LTS" for this usage case, > > would time be better spent improving EPEL and CentOS for the > > desktop/laptop use case? I'd always thought of CentOS/RHEL as "Fedora > > LTS" anyway, to be honest. > > The point of a Fedora LTS for these manufacturers, if it were to exist, > is to give them a channel to partner with, work on support with, and > a software base they can get needed changes into. Agreed. Fedora is well positioned to do that. In fact, it's well positioned for the manufacturers themselves to get their software changes in as well. I think there is an opportunity here for both sides that's worth looking at. > AFAIK, CentOS isn't set up to accept changes (into the base repo) or > provide that level of support. And if they wanted to do it with Red Hat > at the RHEL level... presumably they would already be doing so. That would presume a lot more as well. Do both parties want to pursue that market? Do both parties get benefits from it? Are the development models and support terms structured in a way that facilitates that? Even if we assume an answer of "yes" for all of those things and RHEL is pursuing it, that doesn't mean Fedora cannot or should not, right? josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
