Les Mikesell wrote:
> I thought RHEL made some effort to avoid breaking the 3rd party
> modules that their customers rely on with every kernel update (and
> that's probably a very large reason they have customers...) while
> Linus and fedora refuse to provide a stable interface.
The goal of Fedora is to be as close to upstream as possible - not to
have more customers^Wusers or win popularity contests.
RHEL has customers -- customers who pay good money so that Red Hat can
pay developers to spend time backporting things to maintain ABI.
Fedora has users -- users who get a very current open source OS at no
cost.
If you really need what RHEL provides, use RHEL or CentOS. Why should
Fedora duplicate that?
>> One "bright" idea was to let Fedora come up with a way to make it
>> better.
>
> You mean - like actually define an interface and stick to it at
> least through a kernel major revision number?
Right, and have davej and the kernel team spend all of their time
backporting? I'd rather have the kernel updated in a timely manner.
The place to argue for a stable interface is upstream. Hasn't this
been said over and over before?
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Start every day with a smile and get it over with.
-- W.C. Fields
Attachment:
pgpRyB2zlPxMe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
