On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:47:49 +0100
Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)free.fr> wrote:
> > If an "LTS" release doesn't guarantee stability and timely
security
> > updates, it shouldn't be called LTS. Maybe "Extended Support"
or
> > "More Volunteer Updates". But not LTS...
>
> The name is not the issue, as long as it is understood that it is a
> volunteer based project. It isn't in the fedora name, but fedora is a
> volunteer based project.
What earthly reason would you have to run some old code set, with not
even close to guaranteed updates, let alone timely ones, with little
man power behind it, and the opportunity to be ignored by most package
owners?
Because that's still better and more effective than getting lost in the
Fedora upgrade maelstrom and getting lost in the bureaucracy Fedora
suffers from and better than continuing to use a completely discontinued
distro.
And why aren't those reasons satisfied with RHEL/CentOS which
doesn't
have these problems?
For me, CentOS is an ultra conservative, stagnating distro not
meeting
my demands. It may-be suitable for those who want to set up a server and
run it with minimal support for the next 4 years - To me it's non
interesting.
Ralf