On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:47:49 +0100 > Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If an "LTS" release doesn't guarantee stability and timely security > > > updates, it shouldn't be called LTS. Maybe "Extended Support" or > > > "More Volunteer Updates". But not LTS... > > > > The name is not the issue, as long as it is understood that it is a > > volunteer based project. It isn't in the fedora name, but fedora is a > > volunteer based project. > > What earthly reason would you have to run some old code set, with not > even close to guaranteed updates, let alone timely ones, with little > man power behind it, and the opportunity to be ignored by most package > owners? Because that's still better and more effective than getting lost in the Fedora upgrade maelstrom and getting lost in the bureaucracy Fedora suffers from and better than continuing to use a completely discontinued distro. > And why aren't those reasons satisfied with RHEL/CentOS which doesn't > have these problems? For me, CentOS is an ultra conservative, stagnating distro not meeting my demands. It may-be suitable for those who want to set up a server and run it with minimal support for the next 4 years - To me it's non interesting. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
