On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 09:03 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > True, at the time RHEL5 was new, it had been more or less a rebuilt > > FC5/6 and switching between them had not been a major problem. > > > > Nowadays, it isn't anymore and even will be less when FC10 comes out. > > > > I.e. to today's FC7 or FC8 users, RHEL5 or CentOS5 are not viable > > alternatives. They are kind of a flashback to yesterday's state-of-art. > > Well, DUH! > > Long term stability is achieved by *NOT ADDING NEW FEATURES*. *ADDING > NEW FEATURES INTRODUCES NEW BUGS* > *YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO* > > Sorry for shouting, but all of these people demanding a "Fedora LTS" > don't seem to get this fundamental point. WHAT? Guess why people are demanding for a *FEDORA LTS* and are not demanding for RHEL5 or CENTOS. Answer: RHEL5 is not a replacement for a lifetime extended current Fedora. Rationale, e.g. this: > I mean really, if RHEL5 switched from KDE3.5 to KDE4.0 I'd be > screaming bloody murder. Or even from BIND 9.3 to BIND 9.5. Or > whatever. If Fedora and RHEL were synch'ed, things would be different. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
