On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 09:03 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
Well, DUH!
Long term stability is achieved by *NOT ADDING NEW FEATURES*. *ADDING
NEW FEATURES INTRODUCES NEW BUGS*
*YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO*
Sorry for shouting, but all of these people demanding a "Fedora LTS"
don't seem to get this fundamental point.
WHAT? Guess why people are demanding
for a *FEDORA LTS* and are not
demanding for RHEL5 or CENTOS.
Answer: RHEL5 is not a replacement for a lifetime extended current
Fedora.
Rationale, e.g. this:
I mean really, if RHEL5 switched from KDE3.5 to KDE4.0 I'd be
screaming bloody murder. Or even from BIND 9.3 to BIND 9.5. Or
whatever.
If Fedora and RHEL were synch'ed, things would be different.
Ralf