Josh Boyer (jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> > If 7 years is what manufacturers really want, then it
sounds like
> > CentOS is much better positioned to be get shipped on laptops than
> > Fedora. Instead of working on a new "Fedora LTS" for this usage
case,
> > would time be better spent improving EPEL and CentOS for the
> > desktop/laptop use case? I'd always thought of CentOS/RHEL as "Fedora
> > LTS" anyway, to be honest.
>
> The point of a Fedora LTS for these manufacturers, if it were to exist,
> is to give them a channel to partner with, work on support with, and
> a software base they can get needed changes into.
Agreed. Fedora is well positioned to do that. In fact, it's well
positioned for the manufacturers themselves to get their software
changes in as well. I think there is an opportunity here for both
sides that's worth looking at.
> AFAIK, CentOS isn't set up to accept changes (into the base repo) or
> provide that level of support. And if they wanted to do it with Red Hat
> at the RHEL level... presumably they would already be doing so.
That would presume a lot more as well. Do both parties want to pursue
that market? Do both parties get benefits from it? Are the
development models and support terms structured in a way that
facilitates that? Even if we assume an answer of "yes" for all of
those things and RHEL is pursuing it, that doesn't mean Fedora cannot
or should not, right?
No, it doesn't mean Fedora can't do that. My main point is that I don't
see any situations where those answers are all 'yes' for CentOS, so I don't
think trying to position CentOS for this makes sense.... it either makes
sense for RHEL, or for Fedora (or for both).
Bill