*tap* *tap* *tap*

[Radek Vokál]

On 08/31/2010 01:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:46:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> 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.

Radek

>
>
>> 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. :)
>