On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:03:00 +1100 Roger <arelem(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
On 10/19/2013 05:00 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> I think you all missed their point about wanting an install that has a
>> >>>longer lifespan. They're jumping ship from Debian, and avoiding
Red Hat
>> >>>derived distros, because they all change versions too often, and
abandon
>> >>>prior releases too quickly for them. I understand how they feel.
> >>
> >>that must be why RHEL/CentOS has a lifespan of 10 years
Admittedly I am a novice in much of the reasoning about version changes
but have long wondered why they bother when much of the new version
could be just another update. Golly we update kernels and core apps with
regularity.
When it gets serious like moving from ext4 to btrfs or what ever it's
called, now that would require version change but most version changes
so far seem to be just updates.
I have no wish to create a flame war or cop derogatory comment, my few
cents worth is based on observation not study of code.
Roger
I have long been a (quiet) advocate of this approach -- the so-called
rolling release model. The stock response has usually been: try the
bleeding-edge rawhide, which I do not think is equivalent to have a
leading-edge rolling release model.
Maybe one option could be to have a Fedora version for the rolling
release to run in parallel with Fedora. Call it Topi or some other hat.
Then, there would be the enterprise-level Redhat, the short-term
release-based Fedora and the never-ending-release-called-whatever-hat.
Of course, not sure whether this could be a practical approach.
One other issue is that it sure would be nice if one could install
portions of the kernel without rebooting the machine: would be very
helpful for machines which are desirable to run without rebooting
for months.
Ranjan
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at
http://www.inbox.com/earth