stable Fedora releases?

[Will Backman]

On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:46, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> 
> >    Okay, up front I realize that Fedora is a hobbyist release...
> >but the same could be said of Debian. With that said, is there 
> >any plan in place for eventually having a benchmark stable Fedora
> >release which would be equivalent to the Stable branch of Debian?
> >I ask because it is unclear if one will be able to install a Core
> >release and get access to the proper security patches without
> >constantly upgrading Fedora to the point of it reverting back to
> >a Test release (for the next Core of course). I know in the
> >academic environment many folks are looking at Fedora as a successor
> >to RedHat 9 but I am afraid it is more likely to be a Debian
> >Unstable type release at best.
> >                   Jack
> >
> Well rh9, 8 , etc.. are also hobbyist releases, which is funny that I 
> have installed those in my company for essential servers that must be 
> stable. But I guess my company isn't up to par with the big companies 
> that need the REAL Redhat for their servers. FUD in reverse? Or better 
> yet, the FUD cycle?
> 
> Oh was this what you asked?
> 
> Anyway, it would probably be better to use Debian right now.

Stable has a couple of meanings.
There is stable, as in "doesn't crash" and stable as in "things don't
change".
I think the goal of Fedora is to test new stuff, so things should be
unstable in the second sense.
RedHat had a policy where minor number changes had binary compatibility,
and major number changes broke stuff.  I don't think Fedora tries to
provide continuity between releases.  Anaconda does its best.  For most
of us, this is ok.  We back up our home directories, and reinstall.  For
servers with a long life, you want the "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
design, which you can get with their enterprise products.