Jim Cornette: >>> In order to advance progress for the releases a short life cycle is >>> needed to ensure programs do not remain static and outdated. Tim: >> I do not agree. Programs can advance and change, without the OS having >> to change. OS and applications are separate things. Jon Stanley: > Where do you draw the line here? The kernel, for example gets "lots* > of updates, most of them not for the sake of the fact that we can > update it, but rather that there were bugs that users reported that > were fixed. Do we not fix bugs that actually exist for the sake of > stability for users that have not experienced them? That's a different direction than the point I was countering: That some believe that applications cannot and will not progress if you don't change the OS, as well. It's a furphy. Applications can change and advance, lots, while still running on the same unchanged OS. They're two very different things. > I hate to say it, but RHEL may be the product that you're looking for, > where this exact thing happens. Between update releases, only > critical/security bugs are fixed. Anything that's not a showstopper > waits til the next update relasee. I have played with CentOS, but it *seems* to suffer from the problem I outlined above. People looking after the applications seem to artificially stagnate them. I'll say it again, the OS and applications are separate things, you can advance them individually. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
