On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 12:15 -0600, Jay Moore wrote: > On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 11:49, Wong Kwok-hon wrote: > > > > > > > In my opinion, the ideal would be an OS upgrade every 3-4 years, and/or > > > > > > > >some better (more complete?) tools for automating the upgrade process. > > > >I'm sure this is a pretty difficult thing to do, but I'm into wishful > > > >thinking today :) > > > > > > > > > > > I have to agree with you there. I''m not really sure what consist of a > > > major upgrade for FC. > > > Why not simply call it FC (no numeral) and keep upgrading the packages > > > an that's it. > > > > > > It almost seems like a race simply to get out another major version... > > > when there seems to be so many little bug fixes improvements that can be > > > made and still call it FC3 or whatever. > > > > > > This seems like a "Commercial Software" cycle thing. Where we need to > > > get out a version before the 1st quarter of 05 to bring in some revenues > > > from upgrades. ;-) > > > > Yes, I feel we are the tester of a software sometimes. > > But RedHat is become a commerical software like others. > > So no choice to continue to use it.... > > > Well, that's a good point... RedHat is not alone in this respect. All of > the OS's I've used depend on revenue from CD sales (aka > "contributions"), or outright licensing fees to keep the project going. > Let's face it: at the end of the day, _nobody_ works for free. Somebody > is paying for much of the time and effort that goes into these OS's. > > I just wish that a method of generating the necessary revenue could be > developed that would support a 3-4 year life-cycle for an OS with > automated patches in between, OR 4-6 months between releases with > automated upgrades. > > Jay > Isn't this what fedora legacy project it for?? Regards Andrew -- Andrew Hutchings Systems Operator / Developer / Linux Guru Netserve Consultants Ltd. http://www.domaincity.co.uk/
