reviving Fedora Legacy
rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon Oct 13 13:38:56 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 15:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 13.10.2008 15:09, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 14:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 13.10.2008 14:18, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 11:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > [...]
> >> "1" sounds stupid, but afaics it's really a big problem for a lot of
> >> people. They simply view CentOS as something completely different, which
> >> it IMHO not really is.
> > I disagree, CentOS and Fedora are completely different, e.g. on the
> > "project control/management" side, target-audience wise and
> > feature-wise.
> Of course they are quite different in those areas. But when RHEL5 came
> out it felt and looked a lot like a slightly modified and enhanced
> Fedora Core 5 or 6 (which it was)-- that is want I meant ;-)
True, at the time RHEL5 was new, it had been more or less a rebuilt
FC5/6 and switching between them had not been a major problem.
Nowadays, it isn't anymore and even will be less when FC10 comes out.
I.e. to today's FC7 or FC8 users, RHEL5 or CentOS5 are not viable
alternatives. They are kind of a flashback to yesterday's state-of-art.
> > [...]
> >> Or maybe
> >> RH should simply start to distribute the RHEL bits freely.
> > And this would be an even better alternative, but it's not that I would
> > expect this to ever happen.
> Well, if things continue like in the past two years then the younger
> generation will only learn the Debian and Ubuntu way; that will
> influence the decisions which Linux distribution to take when those
> people get older and become decisions makers (the Wikipedia change is a
> good example for it afaics). Hence Red Hat and Fedora afaics really need
> to change some things become a bit more popular again if Red Hat wants
> to continue making money in the long run ;-)
Chapeau! I whole-heartily agree.
More information about the devel