--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Gordon Messmer <yinyang(a)eburg.com> 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