On 08/31/2010 01:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:46:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen
> The big issue with Fedora Legacy though was trying to do too much. We
> were supporting RHL-7.3, RHL-8 and RHL-9 and old Fedora's. You pick
And it turned out that very few people wanted to do the work to support
Fedora, just old RHL.
If you really want to do this, I suggest starting *opposite* RHEL 6. People
who want something kinda like Fedora 13 to last for a very long time already
have their answer. Wait a year and a half, though, and people will start
itching a little bit. And then they'll want what they picked at that point
to last forever.
Isn't this what CentOS is about? Even though I like this idea to have
something between slow running RHEL and fast forward Fedora.
> 3) We did not have a target audience beyond "everyone who was left
> behind on RHL's crash and burn." [Yes people called it that and worse
> at the time]
Yeah, this. :)
If Fedora had been ready to pick up at that point, things might have been
different. But it's putting it mildly to say that the project floundered a
bit for the first few releases.
> 6) We define what our expected audience is and we keep them with stuff
> they are looking for. This means figuring out a key 'visionary' market
> and supplying them with things they need. [The classic RHL market was
> web servers (ok 'porn') but we can find something more web-3.0 and
> help them get ahead.]
Hello, cloud-sig. :)