new daylight savings time

[Les Mikesell]

Benjamin Franz wrote:

>> Fedora has always been very clear about the life cycle of each release.
> 
> Clear, yes. Smart, no.

New, untested things have to appear first somewhere.  What do you think 
would be more effective?

> Despite Redhat's protestations that Fedora isn't just RHEL 
> beta/technology testbed, in practice that is how it is perceived.

Perhaps we'd be better off if everyone agreed on the process.  If you 
are doing development work and want to build and test against something 
on the way to being the next stable versions that your code will run 
under, you'll want to use fedora.  If you want to take advantage of the 
latest many thousands of man-hours of development work in desktop 
applications on a not-too-critical desktop you'll want fedora or some 
equally fast-paced distro.

> Each 
> Fedora is supported just long enough to 'get stable' and transfer 
> technology to RHEL, and then the end user is forced to do an OS upgrade. 
> There just aren't enough people who love reving the OS every 12 to 18 
> months to a newly unstable release make that viable.

If you pay attention to your local changes and how to re-create them 
after the new install, this can be a fairly easy operation.  It is 
particularly easy if you have a spare machine and can overlap running 
the old and new versions.  The question is just whether or not it is 
worth the trouble.  If you don't care about the new stuff, then probably 
not.

> I'm running FC5/FC6 on my desktops right now: I've been running RH since 
> the RH4/5 days (I used Slackware before that back to 1995). But my next 
> upgrade will probably not be Fedora but either CentOS5 or Ubuntu7 
> (assuming an LTS version is released by then).

Ubuntu sounds good, but keep in mind that they don't have much actual 
experience or a track record in either long term support or rolling out 
updates painlessly across versions with big changes.

> If Redhat really wants their technology testbed for RHEL to reach an 
> expanding rather than a shrinking audience, they are going to have to 
> bite the bullet and provide some method for inexpensive support for at 
> least security patches for an extended time ala the old RH boxed sets. I 
> realize they have a problem with it cannibalizing RHEL (which is their 
> cash cow), but CentOS and Ubuntu are already doing a great job of that 
> right now.

Does the number of fedora users that aren't going to report bugs matters 
to anyone?  There is RHEL if you need and can afford support and CentOS 
if you don't/can't.  A CentOS user is just as much or more a potential 
future RHEL customer as a fedora user - and RH doesn't get paid any more 
if use fedora.  They need people who use and test the added features, 
but what do they gain by doing the extra work of backporting fixes into 
yet another old version.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com