8:46 a.m.
After 4 years, I've gotta say it. I understand there are some legal issues or
tardemark concerns showing the lineage of Red Hat Linux to Fedora Core. Plus there are
also marketing aspects on Fedora v. Enterprise. But the general ignorance of those who
have never followed the Red Hat / Fedora development line, or left after Red Hat Linux 9,
constantly want proof and debate me.
We *NEED* Red Hat, or at least via Fedora, to put up a page - linked on the front page -
that covers both the 2-2-2 month Rawhide/Development-Beta/Test-Release cycle, followed by
the 6-6/6-6-6/6-6-6-6 month release cycler of community to enterprise release (every 2-4
community releases). This would include the full plot going back to Red Hat Linux 4.0, as
well as the first Red Hat Linux 6.2E (retroactively called "Enterprise 1"), and
how that *PROVEN* lifecycle of package, integration and post-release test has held up.
Especially with the regular cycle of community
I'm tired of having virtually *NO* pages but my own to refer to on this, to the point
I've been writing a book on Enterprise Configuration Management: Fedora/Red Hat Linux
(of which I've had not time to complete in the last 18 months worth of 60+ hour/weeks
of consultant, not including travel and other time). I used to maintain an unofficial FAQ
on this, and I should probably re-blog an update of it.
Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was before it. And until Red
Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who want to demonize it
that way will continue, with nothing professionals like myself can point to - other than
our own publications or blog articles on the matter.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
10:49 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:46 +0000, Bryan J Smith wrote:
Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was
before it. And until Red
Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who want to
demonize it that way will continue, with nothing professionals like myself can
point to - other than our own publications or blog articles on the matter.
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
-- Chris Negus
11:08 a.m.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Chris Negus wrote:
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than
perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
Red Hat only has so many resources to spare for long-term maintenance.
Why? Because, as it turns out, it's pretty hard to do well -- and for
that exact reason, it's worth a lot of money to Red Hat to do it well. So
we do it for RHEL, and we do it for big bucks.
There's nothing wrong with someone deciding to offer that kind of support.
That was actually the point of Legacy -- and with all the tools available,
a reformed Legacy group might be able to do that pretty well.
But here's the question: who would join that effort when they could just
get the same benefits from CentOS? And the answer is, basically, no one.
The emergence of CentOS, one could argue, was the final nail in the coffin
of the Legacy project.
--g
--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
12:39 p.m.
People don't realize that trying to maintain updates on a release that is made every 6
months is unrealistic.
As I accurately tracked, when Fedora Core 1 was released, Red Hat was supporting 6
simultaneous releases!
The same thing happened mid-RHL 6.x release - all the way back to 4.2.
Companies "standardized" on Red Hat Linux 7.1 and "didn't want to
move" to RHL 7.2 - causing more release support issues.
That's not feasible. Furthermore, hardware and software vendors are unwilling to
recertify every 6 month release. And they were the ones that pushed (as I understand it)
for a Red Hat Linux 6.2"E" with SLAs.
SuSE Linux Enterprise 7 followed that, then Red Hat with RHAS/RHEL 2.1 based on Red Hat
Linux 7.2 - and the rest is history.
Companies that want longer-term support have to share in the costs of that - especially
for backporting changes to maintain ABI/API and avoid regressions or interface changes.
Trying to maintain a community release cycle of 6 months more than a year is not
realistic.
However, clarifying some things about Fedora's development - including making those
"taboo" references to Red Hat Linux's history,
would go a long way to finally *Smashing* the non-sense commentary and demonizations.
Using a release numbering with a bit more "warnings" would help as well, but
I'm sure I'm asking too much.
That's my point, nothing more. It would be redundant and a waste of Fedora resources.
Other projects that have attempted such have found themselves over-whelmed. You need the
complementary release approach. Especially for leveraging one as a profit model to support
the other.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk(a)redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:08:04
To:For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base
<fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux.org: The Feodra 7 Year Itch
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Chris Negus wrote:
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than
perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
Red Hat only has so many resources to spare for long-term maintenance.
Why? Because, as it turns out, it's pretty hard to do well -- and for
that exact reason, it's worth a lot of money to Red Hat to do it well. So
we do it for RHEL, and we do it for big bucks.
There's nothing wrong with someone deciding to offer that kind of support.
That was actually the point of Legacy -- and with all the tools available,
a reformed Legacy group might be able to do that pretty well.
But here's the question: who would join that effort when they could just
get the same benefits from CentOS? And the answer is, basically, no one.
The emergence of CentOS, one could argue, was the final nail in the coffin
of the Legacy project.
--g
--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
11:11 a.m.
On 6/21/07, Chris Negus <cnegus(a)rucls.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:46 +0000, Bryan J Smith wrote:
> Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was before it. And
until Red
> Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who
want to
> demonize it that way will continue, with nothing professionals like
myself can
> point to - other than our own publications or blog articles on the
matter.
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
-- Chris Negus
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
Wouldn't that be like using Fedora 4 with years of updates?
Fedora 5 support is ending soon, which means that software updates are no
longer being provided. Using a 3 year old Fedora + patches wouldn't make it
secure, it would make it old.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno
Freelance Software Developer & Designer
Fedora Ambassador
Key fingerprint = 6201 742D 1092 92BF FB1E 3310 4731 5C14 520E 0258
11:47 a.m.
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
5:20 p.m.
On 6/21/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
> release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
> having:
>
> * Stable desktop and servers
> * Three years of security updates
> * Branding program with hardware manufacturers
We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat is not doubt the leader, But you do not mention the cost.
I'm going to mention some words of the writer very healthily:
"Perhaps a lesson from the Debian project is in order: release no
distribution before its time. Fedora 7 developers have released a
distribution that's not ready for prime time."
Debian provides this type of structure in its distribution,
maintaining a unstable version, must understood like "unstable safe"
or a "stable risk", at the same time its to stay in bloody line of the
technology adding efforts in maintaining a version completelly
"stable", this does not means that Fedora cannot be used in
production environment, (sometimes Fedora is considering as a
experimental distributions) but I must recognize that it constitutes a
risk, a sysadm know that a package must be consider stable "with time
in the market production", its RHEL and CentOS and is here where maybe
the branch stable Debian version wins. Fedora need a official stable
release (as Debian stable or CentOS for RHEL) matters only for
security updates version of choice for networks and servers for those
for whom dependability matters more than the latest software, and on
one hand the already customary itch out releases.
I believe that Red Hat I do not want to create a new competition of
RHEL and this is the reason for which a branch stable of Fedora is
impossible beyond of operative costs that imply to maintain it.
--
Wilmer Jaramillo M.
GPG Key Fingerprint = 0666 D0D3 24CE 8935 9C24 BBF1 87DD BEA2 A4B2 1E8A
5:49 p.m.
Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
On 6/21/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> > Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
> > release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
> > having:
> >
> > * Stable desktop and servers
> > * Three years of security updates
> > * Branding program with hardware manufacturers
>
> We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat is not doubt the leader, But you do not mention the cost.
What cost? Rebuilds are available for gratis downloads. End users pay
for support and services.
Fedora need a official stable
release (as Debian stable or CentOS for RHEL) matters only for
security updates version of choice for networks and servers for those
for whom dependability matters more than the latest software, and on
one hand the already customary itch out releases.
Common misconception is that RHEL updates are only security fixes. This
is far from true. There are some selected features backported into major
update cycles. For example, RHEL 4.5 added limited para virtualization
support.
I believe that Red Hat I do not want to create a new competition of
RHEL and this is the reason for which a branch stable of Fedora is
impossible beyond of operative costs that imply to maintain it.
If you mean "stable" as in relatively unchanging then Fedora isn't tied
to that goal. The value of RHEL is precisely because there is some real
costs in maintaining a commercial product with associated service level
guarantees.
Rahul
6:06 p.m.
I wish Debian users would stop and understand the reasons for the DCC release.
Unchanging ABI/API and LSB run-time compliance for one.
Kudos to the Debian project in general, especially since they support more than one
ABI/API "set" per release
(I.e., different GCC, GLibC, kernel, etc...).
Of course, those decisions come with their own costs - both in workload, release cycle and
compatibility.
But the negatives are also a major, driving reason behind the DCC releases.
I might be long removed from Debian now, and would not even attempt to dissect it.
But one thing is the honest truth: the Fedora (and RHEL) and Debian (and DCC) release
lifecycles are *NOT* even remotely comparable.
In fact, as I detailed in my other post, Debian and many other distros have directly
benefitted from RHL/Fedora by "waiting" on their "shake down."
Now if you really want to talk about "different," we can start looking a
"ports" distros instead of "packages" ones.
E.g., Gentoo
It even applies far less and cannot be compared at all, no matter how much people try to
fit Portage into the comparison.
When I want early/bleeding edge, source access, I'm at Gentoo - especially in initial
development/adoption.
When I want leading edge, but integration tested, software packages, I'm at Fedora -
especially for core development/adoption.
When I'm want proven, integration tested and regression and change avoidance, I'm
at RHEL - especially for long-term release and support.
Debian offers you more flexibility, but I've also been hit by bad, unforseen interface
changes and regressions in package updates years after initial release.
It's hard, damn hard, to balance new features against proven, fixed ABI/API
standards.
That's why the split lead-edge v. backport packages distros - like RHL/Fedora v. RHEL
"just work."
And when I need to get to pre-Fedora adopted (e.g., Rawhide-state or even earlier) source,
then I have to hit the source, so I just go Gentoo.
But only for select development systems or more embedded developments.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:19:11
To:For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base
<fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux.org: The Feodra 7 Year Itch
Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
On 6/21/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> > Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
> > release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
> > having:
> >
> > * Stable desktop and servers
> > * Three years of security updates
> > * Branding program with hardware manufacturers
>
> We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat is not doubt the leader, But you do not mention the cost.
What cost? Rebuilds are available for gratis downloads. End users pay
for support and services.
Fedora need a official stable
release (as Debian stable or CentOS for RHEL) matters only for
security updates version of choice for networks and servers for those
for whom dependability matters more than the latest software, and on
one hand the already customary itch out releases.
Common misconception is that RHEL updates are only security fixes. This
is far from true. There are some selected features backported into major
update cycles. For example, RHEL 4.5 added limited para virtualization
support.
I believe that Red Hat I do not want to create a new competition of
RHEL and this is the reason for which a branch stable of Fedora is
impossible beyond of operative costs that imply to maintain it.
If you mean "stable" as in relatively unchanging then Fedora isn't tied
to that goal. The value of RHEL is precisely because there is some real
costs in maintaining a commercial product with associated service level
guarantees.
Rahul
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
5:51 p.m.
Sorry, FUD.
1. The Debian (and DCC) and Fedora (and RHEL) release models are not comparable. Some of
us have been Debian maintainers and we'll be the first to tell you that. ;)
2. Fedora is quite stable for production use, especially in an environment with AFS or
NFS and other UNIX infrastructure. A lot of that has to do with Fedora's focus on
enterprise features.
3. The release model for Fedora was _already_proven_ by no less than 15 Red Hat Linux
releases. It remains unchanged now. The "release often" model is not an issue,
it's a requirement of the lifecycle.
Why oh why do people have to compare Fedora to other distros? If you don't like the
proven RHL/Fedora release model and lifecycle, at least stop to understand it. If you
prefer Debian's lifecycle, by all means, go for it!
But let us not forget these realities ...
What distro put forth GLibC 2 (threaded libC)?
What distro put forth GCC 3 (ANSI C++ compliance)?
What distro put forth NPTL (various threading/compat)?
What distro put forth SELinux (MAC/RBAC)?
People talk about Red Hat Linux, then Fedora Core, "breaking things."
People are still talking about how Red Hat Linux 5 "broke everything."
Same deal for 7, 9 and Fedora Core 2, without stopping to wonder why.
No one steps back to realize the _massive_effort_ it took to adopt these radical changes.
They just look at Debian or some other distro some year or two later and say - "oh,
we waited until it was stable."
Um, no. Sorry.
You waited until another distro adopted something, including redeveloping many core
components,
and then all other developers/maintainers had to accommodate, and reaped the benefits of
that after-the-fact.
All while blaming it on Red Hat Linux, now Fedora, two fold - complaining about the change
and incompatibility, then hypocritically saying you waited on the compatibility.
Sorry, putting something into Sid isn't the same as a major, refactored Red Hat Linux
/ Fedora release.
It takes a crapload of effort to make massive, core changes, just to get to that release.
And that still doesn't address the issues post-release of added software, which also
has to be refactored.
It's then, and only then, we get the necessary, concerted effort to "move
forward."
Not by sitting back and waiting for someone like Red Hat to force the issue and projects
to accomodate.
Also remeber the percentage of contributions Red Hat developers make to various projects,
to help them refactor and redevelop after major changes.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: "Wilmer Jaramillo M." <wilmer(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:20:09
To:"For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base"
<fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux.org: The Feodra 7 Year Itch
On 6/21/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
> release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
> having:
>
> * Stable desktop and servers
> * Three years of security updates
> * Branding program with hardware manufacturers
We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat is not doubt the leader, But you do not mention the cost.
I'm going to mention some words of the writer very healthily:
"Perhaps a lesson from the Debian project is in order: release no
distribution before its time. Fedora 7 developers have released a
distribution that's not ready for prime time."
Debian provides this type of structure in its distribution,
maintaining a unstable version, must understood like "unstable safe"
or a "stable risk", at the same time its to stay in bloody line of the
technology adding efforts in maintaining a version completelly
"stable", this does not means that Fedora cannot be used in
production environment, (sometimes Fedora is considering as a
experimental distributions) but I must recognize that it constitutes a
risk, a sysadm know that a package must be consider stable "with time
in the market production", its RHEL and CentOS and is here where maybe
the branch stable Debian version wins. Fedora need a official stable
release (as Debian stable or CentOS for RHEL) matters only for
security updates version of choice for networks and servers for those
for whom dependability matters more than the latest software, and on
one hand the already customary itch out releases.
I believe that Red Hat I do not want to create a new competition of
RHEL and this is the reason for which a branch stable of Fedora is
impossible beyond of operative costs that imply to maintain it.
--
Wilmer Jaramillo M.
GPG Key Fingerprint = 0666 D0D3 24CE 8935 9C24 BBF1 87DD BEA2 A4B2 1E8A
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
9:53 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 12:47 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 21 June 2007 11:49:57 Chris Negus wrote:
> Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
> release every three or four releases?
We do, it's called Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Yes, I should have expected that. Thanks Jesse ;-)
I guess I overstated my case. As someone who actively promotes Fedora, I
sometimes feel frustrated that the quality the Fedora project achieves
(with most releases) is overshadowed by some people's beliefs that you
shouldn't really try to do anything with Fedora since it's unstable.
Maybe what I can do is write up a case study of what people actually
have success doing with Fedora. Deployments in schools, homes or small
businesses. In other words, Fedora project doesn't have to guarantee
anything, but it can say what others have done. Perhaps someone could
point me to some Fedora success stories to get me started.
Anyway, thanks for other suggestions on this thread to create and
support my own distro from Fedora. That is not the least bit likely
(although I did make a pretty cool Fedora 7 8GB install DVD image with
one pungi command... thanks again to Jesse).
-- Chris Negus
9:53 a.m.
On Friday 22 June 2007 10:53:29 Chris Negus wrote:
Maybe what I can do is write up a case study of what people actually
have success doing with Fedora. Deployments in schools, homes or small
businesses. In other words, Fedora project doesn't have to guarantee
anything, but it can say what others have done. Perhaps someone could
point me to some Fedora success stories to get me started.
This would be helpful indeed. Many places refresh every 12 months or quicker
anyway so Fedora provides them a very useful target. A place on the wiki to
start gathering such success stories would go a long way I bet.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
12:28 p.m.
I think it would be redundant and a side-track to offer such.
RHEL offers SLAs and other options, options that go hand-on-hand with its approach.
For those that don't need SLAs, CentOS becomes and option (with caveats).
Fedora continues to offer, as did Red Hat Linux prior, the leading edge in community
development.
Some releases offer less changes than others, with more proven integration and stability.
Others offer more radical changes, which are required to move the codebase forward.
At the most, I wish Fedora would move back to the release numbering prior to Red Hat Linux
8.
Bring back the dot (".") and the big-dot-oh (".0") warning that the
wrench has been thrown.
That's one thing I missed once Red Hat Linux 9 came out, and wasn't numbered 8.1.
I don't care if NPTL killed some compatibility, the attitude has always been ...
X.0, we changed a lot
X.1, only a few things changed (less likely RHEL fork)
X.2, we really like what we have (more likely RHEL fork)
X.3, oh, we could use another, the new stuff ain't ready yet
But other than that nomenclature/meta aspect, there is *0* I'd change.
Maybe support the last revision longer than the others, but that's about it.
In fact, this could be used to support .0 releases not as long, and support only things
that are more stable, more proven longer.
But RHEL (and CentOS) don't need to be duplicated. Red Hat is 100% correct on how the
segmented the lines, because each cater to the needs better of those they target.
Other than that, people didn't care about the trademarks issues then.
So they aren't really likely to care about understanding anything now.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Negus <cnegus(a)rucls.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:49:57
To:fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Linux.org: The Feodra 7 Year Itch
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:46 +0000, Bryan J Smith wrote:
Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was
before it. And until Red
Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who want to
demonize it that way will continue, with nothing professionals like myself can
point to - other than our own publications or blog articles on the matter.
I agree. Fedora is a weird case where reality is better than perception.
Has anyone on the Fedora project considered making one stable Fedora
release every three or four releases? You could promote the release as
having:
* Stable desktop and servers
* Three years of security updates
* Branding program with hardware manufacturers
I think you could bring back a lot of the independent consultants who
went to CentOS or elsewhere after the transition from Red Hat Linux. It
could also quiet people who say cutting-edge = never-better-than-beta.
-- Chris Negus
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
1:01 p.m.
Bryan J Smith a écrit :
After 4 years, I've gotta say it. I understand there are some
legal issues or tardemark concerns showing the lineage of Red Hat Linux to Fedora Core.
Plus there are also marketing aspects on Fedora v. Enterprise. But the general ignorance
of those who have never followed the Red Hat / Fedora development line, or left after Red
Hat Linux 9, constantly want proof and debate me.
We *NEED* Red Hat, or at least via Fedora, to put up a page - linked on the front page -
that covers both the 2-2-2 month Rawhide/Development-Beta/Test-Release cycle, followed by
the 6-6/6-6-6/6-6-6-6 month release cycler of community to enterprise release (every 2-4
community releases). This would include the full plot going back to Red Hat Linux 4.0, as
well as the first Red Hat Linux 6.2E (retroactively called "Enterprise 1"), and
how that *PROVEN* lifecycle of package, integration and post-release test has held up.
Especially with the regular cycle of community
I'm tired of having virtually *NO* pages but my own to refer to on this, to the point
I've been writing a book on Enterprise Configuration Management: Fedora/Red Hat Linux
(of which I've had not time to complete in the last 18 months worth of 60+ hour/weeks
of consultant, not including travel and other time). I used to maintain an unofficial FAQ
on this, and I should probably re-blog an update of it.
Fedora Core is not more "Beta" than Red Hat Linux was before it. And until Red
Hat clarifies that - Enterprise Linux marketing be damned - those who want to demonize it
that way will continue, with nothing professionals like myself can point to - other than
our own publications or blog articles on the matter.
--
Bryan J Smith - mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
I have already beat you with early post =p
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2007-June/msg00186....
6150
days inactive
6151
days old
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Bryan Smith -
Chris Negus -
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Jesse Keating -
Juan Rodriguez -
Luya Tshimbalanga -
Rahul Sundaram -
Wilmer Jaramillo M.