Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: [...] > > 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 OK, that can be an issue. > and getting lost in the bureaucracy Fedora > suffers from Examples? Suggestions to streamline? > and better than continuing to use a completely discontinued > distro. CentOS isn't "completely discontinued"... > > 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. So you want bleeding-edge packages, ultra-conservative distribution version? Perhaps Debian unstable, with its rolling updates (and never, ever a new version) is what you are looking for? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
