On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > [...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and > 2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying > to encourage us to work on the future and not "focus" on > the past. No need to read anything more into that [...] > > My apologies if "Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus > on 2.4 and the next gen?" was such an egregious question! > Shame on me for even asking! :) > > > From the responses I got when I mentioned EOL 2.2 in a discussion a few > months back, it was very clear a few here enjoy living in the dark ages and > were most passionate about staying there for the time being :) > Or, a few here care about the users stuck in the situation of using the software in front of them, instead of dovetailing sideways against the current to build themselves a package that isn't in their distribution's repository. A few of us are very focused on the actual users using the actual software they were presented with. Hopefully, in a few years time, nobody will ever again be presented with 2.2, or 2.0, or 1.3. Given the most-common 3-year refresh cycle followed in our industry, that would mean about a year-and-a-half from now for SuSE users, and more than two years from now for the poor RHEL and CentOS users.
