-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:13:39 -0500 > David Mansfield <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think Fedora LTS would be: >> - planned and built into the Fedora cycle and finally implemented >> - only releases planned in advance to be LTS releases would be LTS >> - there would only be one (or two) outstanding LTS releases at a time > > And you create the same problem. They won't be frequent enough to > support today's hardware, and also if you constantly just do new > versions of everything you lose the ability to support it long term as > too much churn breaks things. > > To be fair, RHEL/CentOS does do limited hardware enablement in the > update releases, like 5.0, 5.1, etc... We do more than just limited hardware enablement, we actually do quite extensive hardware enablement, at least at the motherboard and cpu level (and usually at the storage and networking level as well). For example, the latest RHEL4 supports quad-core processors and the motherboard chipsets you commonly find such processors on. Sometimes only the most recent RHEL gets the bulk of the hardware enablement, but we do try to have a RHEL available to install on the latest server systems from all the big vendors, as well as a fair number of workstations and laptops. Honestly, in my eyes, RHEL/CentOS + EPEL >= Ubuntu LTS, and a separate Fedora LTS is completely unwarranted. RHEL5 is basically FC6 LTS. RHEL6 will basically be F9 LTS. And so on. - -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHl2OZtO+bni+75QMRAldwAKDfY4doTGbP3NC/XncEiC4un7vVgwCeLluD SNm9YsKeU2sbNRn7DfN0RpM= =Qu1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
