Rolling release model philosophy (was Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID)))

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> > Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
> > buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
> > it away and buy a new computer with Windows Y on it. Red Hat expects
> > something similar for RHEL - they don't expect people to upgrade systems
> > from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6 on the fly. Corporations spend *years* planning OS
> > migrations, which usually involve buying new hardware, not upgrading
> > existing systems. This is an implicit acknowledgment that upgrades are
> > just not a great way to do things. I don't think we can realistically
> > expect Fedora to do it massively better. If you're going to do stable
> > releases of your operating system, it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> > to make people upgrade every twelve months. If you're going to have
> > stable releases, you should maintain them long enough that people don't
> > really rely on the upgrade function. That seems to be how the big boys
> > do it. If we can't do that, are the stable releases really achieving
> > much?
> 
> look below, i prove you the opposite

Please keep in mind the overall argument I'm making here. I'm not
interested in trivial point-scoring. I have machines that have been
upgraded for a long time too. Your mail doesn't really speak to the
higher level questions here.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net