On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:35:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> CentOS's
> goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a
> system and run it for years. Fedora is good for people who want to get
> the latest technologies from upstream as soon as they're stable enough
> to integrate into a running system.
Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better.
> > This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself.
> > Guess, how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest
> > "stable" Fedora release?
>
> As few as possible.
IMO, a fundamental management/infrastructure mistake - If these people
were using Fedora, they would be facing the issues Fedora users are
facing everyday and likely would being to understand why people complain
about Fedora.
How many of the packagers run Rawhide?
How often do they run it compared with other Fedora/CentOS/RHEL releases?
How many don't try Rawhide until one of the test releases?
How many skip even the test releases and only try FN+1 after its
final release?
How many use multi-boot machines where they switch between FN-1, FN
and FN+1 as is necessary for testing and also for testing updates?
How many publish untested mass-builds of updates (as aided by
%{dist}-madness)?
> The reason is not about stability. It is about
> updates. Once Fedora stops getting updates we'd have to upgrade to the
> next Fedora release with all of the churn that causes for vastly
> unrelated pieces of the OS.
Gotcha! If not even the Fedora project can handle the issues, why do you
expect users to be able to solve them? I think technically the issues
can be overcome. It's a matter of will.