On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you for this very useful summary. > > One general problem with the thinking behind this is that it applies much more > to CentOS or RHEL than it does to Fedora. In particular: > > users want a solid, stable, reliable, *unchanging* system. > > In that case, really, Fedora is not the answer. No matter how much I love > Fedora, I know that it is never going to be most stable and reliable, and > it is never going to be *unchanging*. > There's a lot to unpack in your reply here, but ultimately most of it seems to fall from this fundamental point. It's a logical fallacy called "begging the question". The current state of Fedora is... volatile. It's new, it's exciting and occasionally dangerous. But your presumption here is that the danger should not be avoided. You're saying "Fedora isn't stable therefore Fedora shouldn't be made more stable" and effectively asserting that no one *else* would want it to be more stable as well. Yes, RHEL and CentOS have a particular business model that rides on "nothing changes". Modularity offers us the chance to take some of our more radical changes and phase them in, rather than push every user onto them at an upgrade boundary. The assertion that users of Fedora wouldn't be welcoming to "my apps are more stable but I still get the latest kernel/platform stuff" is, in my opinion, incorrect. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
