Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

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

 



David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:27, Richard Kelsch wrote:
I still stand by my claim that FC4 fails the intentions of the project. Nevertheless, I know it will be fixed eventually, perhaps FC5.



But you could bet that it would not be fixed if it wasn't released in
its current state so people could fix it.   That's the point of the
fedora releases - it is supposed to meet the usability intentions
by the *end* of a release, when the effort shifts to a new batch
of code and the updates to this one stop.  Since there are 3 prior
releases you can get a pretty good idea how this works by looking
back at the updates that made the other versions usable.

--
 Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Actually, you get a far better idea from looking at the RHEL releases. Upgrades from say RHEL 3 to RHEL 4 are not recommended nor were they recommended from 2.1 to 3. To "ensure a consistent user experience" Red Hat recommends a clean install. Given this, is it really that surprising that upgrades from FC3 to FC4 are at best marginally supported?

Now, take a step back and consider that Red Hat will continue to support a version of RHEL for something like 5 years. If RHEL 3 fully supports a particular hardware platform, what incentive do you as a user have to upgrade to RHEL 4? Other than, "Oh, cool. I'm running the latest version of <fill in the blank>?" This is especially in the corporate IT world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This is in marked contrast to a certain company in Redmond, WA that wants to keep everyone upgrading to the latest and greatest version mainly because they've sold their product based on a different support model that costs them for every year they continue to support an older version. Finally, consider all of the things that can go wrong on an upgrade (e.g., third party packages) and the support costs associated with trying to provide a "consistent user experience." Red Hat has all sorts of incentive to keep people on the version of RHEL that they bought and a lot of reasons for discouraging people from upgrading for a given piece of hardware.

BTW, I'm not complaining. I have an Athlon 1700+ box that I use for my gateway/server and it does just fine with White Box Linux 3. There is really no reason for me to upgrade it to WB 4 since WB 3 mirrors RHEL 3 and continues to be fully supported. It has nothing to do with cost and a lot to do with, "What do I get that's better after an upgrade?"

What is more similar to RHEL 4 ? CentOS or WB?


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux