--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/12/2010 08:31 AM, Patrick > Bartek wrote: > > > > That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is > installed and > > will be supported for those 5 years or so. > > I understand that, but you will never find that to be the > case on a > sustained basis unless you schedule your hardware purchases > to coincide > with OS releases. By "current" OS, I don't mean one newly released the same day the system is built, but one that is from the "era" of the hardware's manufacture. I don't (and never) use cutting edge hardware. As far as Linux is concerned, that's asking for problems. I make sure all my system hardware has been on the market for at least 6 months. That way, the Linux community has had time to write drivers, "fix" code, etc. > You said that you were tiring of > Fedora's release > cycle, but that release cycle is the only way to give users > an OS that > is "current" given that those millions of users are going > to continue > buying hardware in the periods between long-term > releases. Fedora's release cycles when it was Fedora Core used to be longer and not on a strict schedule as it is now. A new version was released when it was ready. Fedora now has become a rapid release test bed, an eternal beta if you will, and we are the testers. But that's okay, since the "good" stuff eventually gets into RHEL and its clones making them more stable and more secure with a longer life. Anyway, in my case, once I build a system, it pretty much doesn't change--hardware-wise--during its life. So, I have no need need for fast release cycles to keep up with cutting edge hardware. Now I may upgrade a CPU or add a another hard drive or install a new graphics card because the orginal one died, but none of that requires upgrading to a newer OS version, or at least, it shouldn't. Also, upgrading Fedora every 6 months or so as most do on this list just means additional headaches and work of a couple months of fixing the problems with the "new" OS when the "old" one was running just fine, but is fast approaching "unsupported." This is my major "problem" with Fedora, and mostly why I only upgrade every third release--Why make more work for myself?--and why I'm considering switching to a long term support version of Linux, whatever that may be. Now I'm not lobbying for Fedora to change its ways. Although, there was some discussion months ago about "why not make Fedora a rolling release?". I'm just saying that its "ways" no longer fulfill my needs. And that's one of the reasons I use Linux: a multitude of options. (If I used Windows or OSX, there would be no option.) > It's > certainly legitimate to choose the long-term release > (RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux), but I'd hope that you'd > recognize the > value that Fedora provides to its users and avoid demeaning > it for its > strength. I've never demeaned Fedora. There are things I don't like to be sure, but that can be said of all things. I've been using it since FC3 after trying a dozen or so other distros before settling on it as my primary desktop OS. So that says something. And I'm VERY particular. It's just that over the years Fedora's development model and my needs have diverged. And it's time to move on. B -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
