[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

Robert Locke lists at ralii.com
Mon Oct 13 03:00:47 UTC 2008


On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 21:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> First you have to give someone a reason to want to migrate to
> >> Fedora. With a planned progression to an enterprise version, that
> >> would not really be a migration away from fedora but the expected end
> >> point where you are permitted to continue using anything you've
> >> contributed or developed for your own use, staying in the same
> >> community instead of having all previous work dumped out the window at
> >> the end of a cycle. I'll point out again that this is the way Red Hat
> >> developed its popularity, although it was probably a mistake to have
> >> tried to support every release forever.
> > 
> > Fedora is _not_ enterprise, it is _not_ in its goals, it is _not_ it's
> > target audience. Why would anybody start on Fedora planning to "graduate"
> > to EL?
> 
> For exactly the same reason that people used to use RH X.0 versions for 
> development and testing, planning to  run their programs on X.2 as both 
> their local development and the distribution mature.  That's what made 
> RH popular.  And there is no equivalent now that Fedora never matures to 
> a supported stable version.
> 

So, we are talking about doing development on a platform that evolves
and represents the latest in open source technology?  And we are wanting
to deploy on a production ready/stable release?  Doesn't the current
Fedora for development, and CentOS/RHEL for production not satisfy your
need?

I think the only thing missing from your need is a smooth "in-place"
upgrade capability?

But how often is development done (for a year or so) that then becomes
the actual production system?  Would not the production system be
installed in parallel as you approached the timeframe for deployment?

--Rob





More information about the devel mailing list