Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>> There's a notion called freedom that you may have heard of.
> And how is that specific to Fedora? I meant as opposed to a system
> where you can actually deploy something that needs stability.
There are few distributions that I consider as free as Fedora and
none that I would consider more free.
OK, but how much of that freedom originates in Fedora? I don't see how
omitting more things from a distribution helps anyone. But that's a
different issue.
> Local development for things you want to put into production
progresses
> at about the same rate as the system itself. If you wait for an
> enterprise version's release before starting, you'll be about a year and
> a half behind. If you develop on the previous enterprise version, there
> will be a huge version jump in libraries, database versions, jvms, etc.
> that will require changes and not take advantage of new capabilities.
This sounds like you have an issue with the entreprise distributions and
you're trying to shoehorn Fedora into being a stopgap solution for it.
Why don't you work with the entreprise distributions' communities to
find a better solution ?
The issue is that the enterprise distributions don't put their own brand
name on the early development work and ship it so users have a smooth
transition through development, testing and the final release. But the
reason that doesn't happen is that Fedora fills that role except for
providing a smooth transition to something production-ready. I don't
think it is me 'shoehorning' Fedora into the role that RH X.0 releases
used to fill.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com