On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:35:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > CentOS's
> > goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a
> > system and run it for years. Fedora is good for people who want to get
> > the latest technologies from upstream as soon as they're stable enough
> > to integrate into a running system.
> Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better.
>
> > > This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself.
> > > Guess, how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest
> > > "stable" Fedora release?
> >
> > As few as possible.
> IMO, a fundamental management/infrastructure mistake - If these people
> were using Fedora, they would be facing the issues Fedora users are
> facing everyday and likely would being to understand why people complain
> about Fedora.
How many of the packagers run Rawhide?
How often do they run it compared with other Fedora/CentOS/RHEL releases?
How many don't try Rawhide until one of the test releases?
How many skip even the test releases and only try FN+1 after its
final release?
How many use multi-boot machines where they switch between FN-1, FN
and FN+1 as is necessary for testing and also for testing updates?
How many publish untested mass-builds of updates (as aided by
%{dist}-madness)?
> > The reason is not about stability. It is about
> > updates. Once Fedora stops getting updates we'd have to upgrade to the
> > next Fedora release with all of the churn that causes for vastly
> > unrelated pieces of the OS.
> Gotcha! If not even the Fedora project can handle the issues, why do you
> expect users to be able to solve them? I think technically the issues
> can be overcome. It's a matter of will.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
