On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:24 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 1/18/06, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The more that is done to make Legacy a purely internal action not > > readily discernable (I am sorry about suggesting this reduction in > > profile) the less Fedora will look like an upgrade treadmill and the > > more it will look like a project issuing basically immortal releases, > > this 6 month drumbeat will be only of interest to people looking to > > upgrade by choice. > > What really disturbs me.. is that people are installing Fedora without > realizing the EOL timescale and are only complaining about the EOL > policy as their installed release nears the EOL date. This is nothing > but a panic response from individuals who did not take the time to > read up on the established EOL policy. It's essentially public > blackmail. Do what i want right now, becaue its what i want or you'll > be sorry. It's really a shame that vocal opposition to the current > EOL policy shows up at EOL time and not at release time of FC3. Policy > discussions like this should be proactive not reactive. I'd be much > more sympathetic if this discussion were the result of people reading > over the EOL policy before installing Fedora and making the argument > from a perspective user point of view. The simple fact is, Fedora > isn't attempting to be the best solution for everyone with a need to > run a linux system. I relish its aggressive focus. For people who > desire to skip releases and who do not want to march to the beat of > the 6 month-ish upgrade/install drum.. it is quite possible that > Fedora Core will not be the correct choice. Make no mistake, Fedora's > development model will not solve everyone's usage needs. If the EOL > policy and the Legacy suppliment do not fit your needs.. you should be > making that determination before you choose to install Fedora over > other solutions. The lesson I've taken away from this is, people > aren't making rational informed decisions at the time the choose to > install fedora. I'm left assuming that people are installing fedora > based on brand recognition or zealotry, instead of based on informed > opinion as to whether fedora isa reasonable choice for that > installation. > > Should the people who have FC3 installed right now, have known exactly > what the EOL policy was before they made the decision to use FC3? The > answer to that is abso-freaking-lutely. Why exactly are the people who > want ot have the policy dicussion now choose to install FC3 and wait > till the EOL date to complain about the EOL policy? Why didn't they > bring this up as part of their personal decision making process for > FC3 installation? Did the people who are asking for an extention of > FC3 fail to understand the EOL policy when they installed Fc3? Does > this project need to better job of communicating the EOL policy to > people looking to install Core? How exactly do you force people to > read the important documentation concerning the EOL policy? > > -jef > You are right. Hence, I was talking about FC4 EOL and not FC3 EOL. I'm looking to close the Window (so to speak) between FC-current release and FC-2 EOL, not extend the EOL to a RHEL-like term. Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
