On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 08:40:19PM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 20:15 10/25/2003, you wrote: > >I don't agree with the notion that some how Fedora is going to be any > >less stable than the "free" RH9 many use on this list now. > > Neither do I. However, to give you something to think about, the "other" > argument against Fedora according to some people is that you cannot be sure > that "the community" will roll out patches and security updates in a timely > fashion. That is a valid concern, since this early in the game we do not > yet know how that will be done and speculation is to be expected. > > What thoughts would you have on that subject? (Wade or anyone else.) My personal guess is that the vast majority of time, we'll see prompt patches. However, I'm also guessing that some of those fixes will not be back-ported fixes like we're used to seeing, but will be new versions that happen to have the fixes in them. That will solve the problem that we see today of people asking for release x.y when they've heard that that x.y has the fix even though a vendor may have backported the fix to x.x. The problem it will create is incompatibilities - people will occasionally need to update config files or update multiple packages due to different dependencies. You'll update to the latest package to get the fix and something you did before no longer works. Only time will tell. The people demanding stability will veer towards RHPW/RHEL and be happy. Those that like the newer features and don't mind the occasional extra work will go with Fedora and be happy. There's definitely a place for both - neither one is better than the other. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
