On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 02:36:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:19:15 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > > If I read this exchange correctly, Fedora may not be a RH 10 equivalent for > > those users of previous versions of RHL. Not a good sign?? > > Have you posted this to all lists at redhat.com? ;) No. > > [Recycling the reply I poste to redhat-list and fedora-list just a > few minutes ago. Why the separate cross-post?] Because not everyone subscribes to all three lists and I want to get the perspective and feedback from those with more knowledge and experience that I have. > Can you explain this question a bit? No part of what you quoted gives > a hint on what makes you think that "Fedore Core 1" will not be what > was expected to become Red Hat Linux 10. The poster said: > Unless something has changed recently..very recently...having apt or > yum work to do dist-upgrade like behavior is not something thats > getting a lot of Fedora Core development attention. You can > certainly try to do it, becuase both yum and apt have the ability to > do this sort of thing...but if it goes wrong...your bugs might not > be a high priority. Bug testing effort is best spent on issues > developers want tested...and to-date I haven't seen much interest > from the development side to make upgrading between releases with > apt a high priority. I am trying to plan for what action will need to be done due to the demise of RHL. Some have suggested that Fedora will be a logical replacement. Others have said that yum/apt might be used in place of up2date. Still others have suggested that redhat network will be migrated to Fedora. The overall tone of the discussion does not seem consistent with Fedora being a redhat linux equivalent product. If that is the case, then one might want to start a serious look for a replacement. The quoted post seems to be consitent with the view of On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:50:45 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote > 4~6 month release cycle (somewhat normal), > but errata only supplied for 3~4 months after the next release, > giving each Fedora Core release a 7~10 month life span. Also, > Fedora will do away with the previous strive to keep binary > compatability going, and instead bring in as much new stuff as > possible, making rolling updates impossible. Havoc has sated that > Desktop users and production environments are no longer the target > audience of RHL/Fedora, instead the hobby market is, with fast > changes and constant new features. THis makes Fedora all but > unusable in any production place, where RHL was still VERY useable, > even with it's 1year+ lifespan. I need a stable 12-18 month release supported by something like up2date. It use will not be in a production environment, but it is not intended to be bleeding edge either. Some have suggested that we wait to see what develops. The exchange, however, seemed to imply that waiting might not be a good strategy. -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
