Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
(BTW I tried F12 KDE SIG on my netbook but the for once really good Kubuntu 9.10 had the edge in almost all regards.)
Between Fedora 12 and 13
Posted Dec 1, 2009 19:04 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
RH is a American company, so they would never base RH6 on a version 13 .
Posted Dec 1, 2009 19:40 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)
That is why things like this happen: http://apcmag.com/microsoft_to_skip_unlucky_office_13.htm
I think they do it because of their customers. Superstition is an art from in the US.
Posted Dec 1, 2009 20:24 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
Posted Dec 2, 2009 17:40 UTC (Wed) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)
AIUI, it all comes from the Last Supper, so most Christian countries (and that's a lot!) may have this superstition (the 13th is a traitor [Judas], or the 13th will die [Jesus]).
Posted Dec 3, 2009 18:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Posted Dec 4, 2009 10:28 UTC (Fri) by SimonKagstrom (subscriber, #49801)
Maybe they should jump directly to Office 18 instead!
Posted Dec 5, 2009 1:26 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
My Chinese colleagues take lucky and unlucky numbers far more seriously than Americans do
That's my experience too.
Chinese American business people nearly wet themselves back when "888" was introduced as a toll-free telephone area code.
If you don't know Mandarin but listen to Mandarin TV a lot (as I do, due to my Chinese roommate), the most common phrase you hear is "yi ba ba ba," which appears at the end of most commercials and means "1-888".
Posted Dec 3, 2009 17:11 UTC (Thu) by Richard_DCS (guest, #56565)
Posted Dec 3, 2009 19:36 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)
IMHO going feature based and even longer release cycles makes sense for an enterprise distro with a subscription business model. There is always Fedora (if you are into BDSM that is .. JK)
And I think the lifetime of RH5 will be extended even more.
Posted Dec 3, 2009 21:23 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Debian learned this lesson with the Sarge development cycle. The Linux kernel devs
learned this with the 2.5.x development cycle.
And the solution, in both cases, has been *more frequent releases*. And it is a solution
which has worked pretty well. I certainly don't mean that Red Hat needs to go to the usual
6 month release cycle. (Which is too rapid for any distro, IMO. Personally, I think Gnome,
KDE, Xorg, and most distros should target 9 months. But that's another post.) But RH could
benefit from dropping their 18-24 month target to 12-18 months.
With a 12-18 month release cycle, they could afford to go ahead and release the
improvements that are ready... and let the rest wait another 12 months, or so. It wouldn't
be so painful to release without everything on the current list of desired features. And 12-18
months is still long enough to preserve good QA.
It would, however, leave them with more releases to support simultaneously. Such is life, I
Posted Dec 3, 2009 22:33 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)
I think most customers are happy with RHEL5 and are only willing to switch for compelling features. So if a 2 year update cyle won't offer those RH will adopt a longer cycle, which is what has happened I guess.
IMO this is RH new release policy:
"Gather enough features that would compel our customers to switch and that we can't realistically backport and then release.(and adapt lifetime of products accordingly. 8 or 9 years max)"
Maybe that is the crux of the subscription model, you have to do what your customers want (I know how strange that sounds.)
Posted Dec 3, 2009 23:33 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
Then if they've decided to change policy, they need to at least stop continuing to actively
advertise 18-24 month release cycles in their *current* sales material. Even if they are not
ready to actually announce a change yet. Unless they think their customers *want* to be
Posted Dec 3, 2009 19:58 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
I used to use some CentOS for XDMCP servers. And on a release cycle of 18-24 months, that
works out OK. Though I tend to prefer to update at 12 month intervals. And they were doing
pretty well until now. Oh, RHEL5 was a bit late. But not enought to worry about. But I'm
really surprised that Red Hat is being as cavalier as they are in violating their stated policy.
Now that all my CentOS installations are purely servers, of the conventional sort, I don't
mind it that much. But it really is a bit of an issue for people who chose RHEL/CentOS for
desktop related work. Granted they've updated some of the desktop apps. But those are
apps that an admin would have been able to update fairly easily anyway. (And in fact, I
used to do a Firefox/Thunderbird/OO.o facelift toward the end of the release cycle, anyway.)
But it looks like RHEL/CentOS desktop folks are likely to be stuck with creaky old Gnome
2.6.16 and kernel 2.6.18 for some time to come, even if RHEL 6 is based upon F12.
Lest this post seem too negative (as some here seem to have developed a hair trigger
when I criticize things in the RH world) I will say that to their credit, the 7 year support cycle
for both server and desktop pretty much blows all competing distros out of the water. Even
Ubuntu's 3yr desktop/5 yr server support cycle for LTS releases does not match that. So
good on Red Hat for that. Presumably, that is a promise that they will not choose to break.
At least, I would be very surprised if they did.
Posted Dec 11, 2009 17:04 UTC (Fri) by damentz (guest, #41789)
Fedora is a testing ground for new features, not the new RHEL core packages.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds