On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:56:09 -0500 Jarod Wilson <jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I say limited because we're not likely to pull the 2.6.25 kernel into RHEL5 and replace the 2.6.18 kernel. Sure we'll backport lots of it, and by the end of RHEL5's life our 2.6.18 kernel won't look much like 2.6.18, but there is a limit to what we'll do there. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
