On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:59 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > >> 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. > > I don't think a kernel or libc should be "interesting" and the only > reason to change them should be to get one that works with new hardware. > Server apps also tend to be mostly feature-complete even in old > versions. However desktop apps are evolving rapidly and there really is > a missing spot in fedora/rhel style distributions since nothing provides > both kernel/core library stability and current application versions. Unfortunately as the desktop grows increasingly full-featured, the amount of the stack which needs to change for supporting newer desktop apps is increasing. Once upon a time (... in a galaxy far, far away) I used to build updated GNOME versions for older Red Hat Linux releases. It wasn't easy, but it was pretty constrained to a small set of packages. These days, I'd end up needing new hal which brings in ConsoleKit which ...[1] Jeremy [1] Note: this is an example. I am not saying this is bad. Hi davidz! :) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
