On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:38:41 +0100 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I see it, too. Initially people chose Fedora as replacement for RHL. > Fedora didn't fill this gap and still hasn't managed to fill this gap. RHL was a failure on Red Hat's part. They flat out could not afford to continue it as it was. Any sort of Fedora effort that looks like LTS or looks like RHL is not going to get much RH resources after the 13 months we get now (and that even took some convincing). With lots of key resources pulling out after that time period, many of us struggle with the thought of seeing something continue on without those resources under the name of Fedora. Ubuntu LTS seems to exist because they have no RHEL/CentOS equiv. I feel that our efforts are far better spent making the RHEL/CentOS/EPEL experience better, so that there isn't a thought that we need a long term Fedora, because we'd already have it with the RHEL/CentOS/EPEL set. -- 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
