I think it would be redundant and a side-track to offer such.
RHEL offers SLAs and other options, options that go hand-on-hand with its approach.
For those that don't need SLAs, CentOS becomes and option (with caveats).
Fedora continues to offer, as did Red Hat Linux prior, the leading edge in community development.
Some releases offer less changes than others, with more proven integration and stability.
Others offer more radical changes, which are required to move the codebase forward.
At the most, I wish Fedora would move back to the release numbering prior to Red Hat Linux 8.
Bring back the dot (".") and the big-dot-oh (".0") warning that the wrench has been thrown.
That's one thing I missed once Red Hat Linux 9 came out, and wasn't numbered 8.1.
I don't care if NPTL killed some compatibility, the attitude has always been ...
X.0, we changed a lot
X.1, only a few things changed (less likely RHEL fork)
X.2, we really like what we have (more likely RHEL fork)
X.3, oh, we could use another, the new stuff ain't ready yet
But other than that nomenclature/meta aspect, there is *0* I'd change.
Maybe support the last revision longer than the others, but that's about it.
In fact, this could be used to support .0 releases not as long, and support only things that are more stable, more proven longer.
But RHEL (and CentOS) don't need to be duplicated. Red Hat is 100% correct on how the segmented the lines, because each cater to the needs better of those they target.
Other than that, people didn't care about the trademarks issues then.
So they aren't really likely to care about understanding anything now.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Negus <cnegus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:49:57
To:fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux.org: The Feodra 7 Year Itch
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:46 +0000, Bryan J Smith wrote:
> Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was before it. And until Red
> Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who want to
> demonize it that way will continue, with nothing professionals like myself can
> point to - other than our own publications or blog articles on the matter.
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.
-- Chris Negus
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
