On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
> introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
> operating system.

I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedora. Who like
shiny cutting-edge stuff and don't mind dealing with wonkiness
constantly.

I mind. So do many Fedora users and contributors, who want a shiny *stable* leading edge (not bleeding edge) linux distribution.

I wouldn't dream of putting any regular person on a Fedora
install, quite frankly. It's easy to get into a perspective bubble where
Fedora looks normal, but it isn't. It is not a stable general-purpose
operating system and it's absurd to represent it as such.

I understand that "regular users" are not Fedora's main target, but it is a general-purpose operating system in the sense that it can be used by people who want to have a stable working environment with all the latest things from the Open Source world.

In that sense, and from my point of view, if we had to rethink our release model and dedicate time and energy on a new approach, it would make more sense to have an extended support release (providing only security updates after 13 months) which is vital for the enterprise desktop market. Of course this is not in contradiction with having a rolling release model alongside, but I didn't know if we have enough human capacity to do them both.