On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 16:08 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 16:04 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 09:51 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:56:20AM +1030, n0dalus wrote:
> > > Would it be possible for redhat to just extend security fixes for FCx
> > > until FC(x+2) comes out? I think if I was using an older release this
> > > is something I would really want.
> >
> > The Fedora Legacy project already does that and does it rather well. Why
> > would it be any different if a Red Hat person was notionally doing it ?
>
> As I see it, it's "having to change your system to change it again a
> couple of months later".
>
> Probably most of these people do not want to use Legacy in longer terms,
> but want to have see an overlap between 2 releases, because they skip
> releases and are afraid of seeing a gap between these releases.
>
> Another difference is marketing. "FC3 by RH" sounds differently than
> "FC3 by Legacy".
... but.. FC3 isn't by RH. It's by the Fedora Project.
That's what RH wants to make people believe. Reality is different - FC
is directed, maintained and provided by RH. FE is the community provided
set of packages, a "Fedora Project" isn't much more than a marketing
bubble.
Fedora Legacy is
also under the Fedora Project....
Name make a differences. If RH simply provided
the packages on the same
directories, on the same servers and would exchange the personell from
"RH to Legacy" underneath, probably nobody would notice.
Ralf