| |||||||||||||
Between Fedora 12 and 13Between Fedora 12 and 13Posted Nov 30, 2009 22:32 UTC (Mon) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)Parent article: Between Fedora 12 and 13
RH is a American company, so they would never base RH6 on a version 13 .
But I guess that RH6 will release after F13 and most fixes that went into F13 will eventually end up in RH6.
(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.)
(Log in to post comments)
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 1, 2009 19:04 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] RH is a American company, so they would never base RH6 on a version 13 .Why not?
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 1, 2009 19:40 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
"13" is considered "unlucky".
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.
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 1, 2009 20:24 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I am aware of "unlucky 13", but disagree that "Superstition is an art form in the US." Perhaps they won't base it on 13, but I doubt it. I know it makes people feel good to bash on the US, but I get rather tired of it.
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 2, 2009 17:40 UTC (Wed) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]
Yeah, 13 is a number avoided in many places in Europe too. Many hotels don't have room 13 for example.
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]).
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 3, 2009 18:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] My Chinese colleagues take lucky and unlucky numbers far more seriously than Americans do, and the Chinese government does so as well. In particular, 8 is such a lucky number that the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies began at 8/8/08 at 8 minutes and 8 seconds after 8pm local time. The number 4 is very unlucky as it sounds like the word for death.
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 4, 2009 10:28 UTC (Fri) by SimonKagstrom (subscriber, #49801) [Link]
Now that you mention it, Microsofts decision to skip Office 13 and go for Office 14 instead doesn't sound like a very wise move :-).
Maybe they should jump directly to Office 18 instead!
unlucky numbers Posted Dec 5, 2009 1:26 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] 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".
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 3, 2009 17:11 UTC (Thu) by Richard_DCS (guest, #56565) [Link]
The biggest reason that they should not base on version 13 is that RHEL6 is already 9 months late on their self proclaimed 18-24 months release cycle.
RHEL lifecylce Posted Dec 3, 2009 19:36 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
_I_ think RH silently went from time based to feature based.
I guess they want a kernel with a fairly ready BtrFS and some other stuff (KVM, maybe RT and also higher up the stack.) If think about it it makes sense. Selling an OS with Ext4 in 2012? I don't think so. KVM has to replace the current Xen etc.
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.
RHEL lifecylce Posted Dec 3, 2009 21:23 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
I think you are right about the incursion of feature-based thinking. Once a time-based
release cycle gets long enough, I starts getting harder to decide to release without some highly desired feature. Because you know you are going to have to live with that for two years. Of course, over the course of the extended release cycle, new things arise that you come to think of as "must have". And you sure don't want to release without those.
Debian learned this lesson with the Sarge development cycle. The Linux kernel devs
And the solution, in both cases, has been *more frequent releases*. And it is a solution
With a 12-18 month release cycle, they could afford to go ahead and release the
It would, however, leave them with more releases to support simultaneously. Such is life, I
RHEL lifecylce Posted Dec 3, 2009 22:33 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Well, there is a whole ecosystem around RHEL, which RH probably wants to preserve. More frequent releases would demand faster certification from Oracle, IBM, SAP etc. Which is very unlikely. They mostly only certify new products. Customers would be unhappy.
Yearly releases would only work if RH would provide the whole stack, but for most people they don't. I think they want to get there, but so far ..
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.)
RHEL lifecylce Posted Dec 3, 2009 23:33 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
"""
Maybe that is the crux of the subscription model, you have to do what your customers want """
Then if they've decided to change policy, they need to at least stop continuing to actively
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 3, 2009 19:58 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Indeed. A predictable release cycle of 18-24 months was one of Red Hat's major selling
points for RHEL. And the RHEL5 General Overview document still claims 18-24 months, even as they cavalierly violate that stated policy.
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhel/rhel5_overview.pdf
I used to use some CentOS for XDMCP servers. And on a release cycle of 18-24 months, that
Now that all my CentOS installations are purely servers, of the conventional sort, I don't
Lest this post seem too negative (as some here seem to have developed a hair trigger
Between Fedora 12 and 13 Posted Dec 11, 2009 17:04 UTC (Fri) by damentz (guest, #41789) [Link]
Who says RHEL needs to be based off a version of Fedora? They just pick software that is better than what they were using in the previous version of RHEL.
Fedora is a testing ground for new features, not the new RHEL core packages.
|
|||||||||||||