Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
On 6/21/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> 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
We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat is not doubt the leader, But you do not mention the cost.
What cost? Rebuilds are available for gratis downloads. End users pay
for support and services.
Fedora need a official stable
> release (as Debian stable or CentOS for RHEL) matters only for
> security updates version of choice for networks and servers for those
> for whom dependability matters more than the latest software, and on
> one hand the already customary itch out releases.
Common misconception is that RHEL updates are only security fixes. This
is far from true. There are some selected features backported into major
update cycles. For example, RHEL 4.5 added limited para virtualization
support.
> I believe that Red Hat I do not want to create a new competition of
> RHEL and this is the reason for which a branch stable of Fedora is
> impossible beyond of operative costs that imply to maintain it.
If you mean "stable" as in relatively unchanging then Fedora isn't tied
to that goal. The value of RHEL is precisely because there is some real
costs in maintaining a commercial product with associated service level
guarantees.
Rahul
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
