Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: 1-2-3 out, time for FC2?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 4/5/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
> > If fedoralegacy supported FC1 for so long why to take fc2 out now? Try to
> > do a search on dedicated servers providers, you will find most of them
> > still provide FC2, and for eg. Plesk supports FC3 only on latest versions
> > (officially)... another example, look at this poll at ART's site:
> > http://www.atomicrocketturtle.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Polls&file
> >=index&req=results&pollID=6&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
> >
> > I think FC2 is still used by many people, I would suggest you consider
> > supporting FC2 for some more time if possible.
>
> Honestly, I feel that supporting FC1 for so long was a mistake.  It set a
> precedence that I really don't want to continue.  Legacy picked a timeline
> that fit well with what Fedora produces, and what RHEL (and rebuilds) offer.
> Going further than that is really beyond the scope of the Fedora Project as a
> whole.  Falling back into our 1-2-3 and out set schedule will be the best
> thing, and to get to that point we need to drop FC1 and FC2, to make room for
> FC3.  We need to concentrate on doing better for the releases we do support,
> and adding to the workload is not the way to do this.  Fedora is great, and
> the lifespan we can give it is a good, but if you need more, you should
> probably be looking at RHEL or one of its rebuilds.
>

Jesse is 100% correct. People keep forgetting that the Fedora project
is not intended for those who hate change. Fedora is for people who
want to be on the cutting edge. FC2 was the first big distro to
support 2.6. People swarmed to FC2 so that they could try out the
latest technology. This is the way it's been with every Fedora release
and really all of the RHL releases too.

If you need stability for a long period of time, there are other
distros out there. RHEL is an excellent migration path.

If your enterprise software has standardized on a particular version
of FC, they should be drawn and quartered because they obviously have
no clue what Fedora is about.

Are you still on FC2? Upgrade! The path from FC2 to FC3 is a piece of
cake, and really, why stop there? Go on to 4 or 5. Using an older
version? I've migrated RHL 7,8,9 & FC1 (aka RHL9.1) to Ubuntu very
successfully (it has Apache 1.3 and other mature products readily
available in Universe).

By the way, it is not the job of FL (with the exception of Jesse
maybe) to make people happy with RH. They flat out said that they have
divided their products so that they can appease those who want the
newest technology (FC) and at the same time, those who want stability
(RHEL). If you don't like the fact that FC is for people who like to
upgrade *every 9 months* then you should find another solution.

<xsl:call-template select="StepDownFromSoapBox"/>

--
Matthew Nuzum <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.followers.net - Makers of "Elite Content Management System"
View samples of Elite CMS in action by visiting
http://www.followers.net/portfolio/

--

fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list

[Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Free Internet Dating]     [Yosemite Questions]

Powered by Linux