On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Chris Negus wrote:
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
Red Hat only has so many resources to spare for long-term maintenance.
Why? Because, as it turns out, it's pretty hard to do well -- and for
that exact reason, it's worth a lot of money to Red Hat to do it well. So
we do it for RHEL, and we do it for big bucks.
There's nothing wrong with someone deciding to offer that kind of support.
That was actually the point of Legacy -- and with all the tools available,
a reformed Legacy group might be able to do that pretty well.
But here's the question: who would join that effort when they could just
get the same benefits from CentOS? And the answer is, basically, no one.
The emergence of CentOS, one could argue, was the final nail in the coffin
of the Legacy project.
--g
--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
