Michael R. Batchelor wrote:
> I think it's clear, to me at least, that a small company cannot possibly
> stay in business if they've got too much legacy support. However, I do
> understand the point of backporting things to the current release.
>
> Mandrake obviously does this with the security releases. I have gotten
> back ports to my 7.1 system for some things.
Maybe a dividing line policy would straighten things out? Only backport
the last version? And what would I do when the next version came out?
Cut me a flat-rate discount on the next version! I'd be more encouraged
to upgrade then.
My biggest issue is this open source stuff is a big headache. When it
comes to Linux, I just want to be a user. The amount of compiling and
reading one must do, even as free software becomes easier to use, is
pretty overwhelming for a user to keep up with. I feel many users want
to keep up to date with software changes because lots of hardware is not
supported in Linux like it is with Windows setups, and also because it
is very exciting. This is why I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee
to get backports of "interesting" packages (or even ones with just
bug-fixes).
>
> I think the biggest problem is that many people are beginning to think
> cooker is a place to stay on the leading edge. But cooker is really the
> bleeding edge, not the leading edge. Perhaps a tagline on the bottom of
> cooker messages reminding everyone that cooker is not stable would be
> good.
That is a good idea. I joined this list only recently, and my
impression is most people are not here for community development and
testing of software packages. Imagine my surprise when I found an
active list of people wanting the latest feature already "cooked" for
them. I thought I was going to be the only grubby user on this list. :)
>
> Another thought would be to look at the OpenBSD release model. They have
> three branches. The release branch (the actual CD image), which is
> frozen when the CD's go to press. The stable branch, which is
> essentially updates to the release branch. And finally a current branch,
> which is like cooker. On any given day something in current might be
> broken.
Didn't Netscape try developing three versions of their browser at the
same time and the whole effort failed horribly?
> I would probably abandon the stable updates on the old branch after a
> new release. In other words, I probably would *NOT* do any backports on
> a stable branch to 7.1. (I probably would continue security releases on
> 7.1 for a while. I would consider security releases for 12 months after
> the branch is retired, but that may be too expensive.)
>
> And I would keep hammering to people that cooker is *NOT* stable. Use it
> at your own risk.
Can't argue with the "*NOT* stable" comment.
> Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
