11–17 of 17 posts
Fedora naming convention was always a bit strange. we went from Sulfur, Cambridge, Leonidas and Constantine (examples) to Beefy Miracle, Spherical Cow... and... Heisenbug.. the previous names seem stronger to me for some reason.
No stranger than a very popular distro that uses names from Toy Story for its releases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No stranger than a very popular distro that uses names from Toy Story for its releases.
FWIW, there is at least a "method to the madness" behind the naming of Debian releases. Fedora and Ubuntu, for example, seem to come up with names at random.
The adjectives used also indicate the mission of that particular release--the LTS releases' names have attempted to indicate their relative stability: Dapper, Hardy, Lucid, Precise, and Trusty. Whereas the intermediate releases which debut new ideas and tools have names that indicate their freer status: Edgy, Maverick, Raring, Jaunty, Feisty.
Silly it may be. Pointless? Definitely. But random it is not.
Perhaps Ubuntu will follow suit. They have came up with some really stupid names over the years and, as a non-Ubuntu user, it's impossible to keep track of what actual version "Retarded Rhino" corresponds to.
Perhaps Ubuntu will follow suit. They have came up with some really stupid names over the years and, as a non-Ubuntu user, it's impossible to keep track of what actual version "Retarded Rhino" corresponds to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, there is at least a "method to the madness" behind the naming of Debian releases. Fedora and Ubuntu, for example, seem to come up with names at random.
For Ubuntu, each release uses the next letter of the alphabet. And the names are chosen by Mark Shuttleworth, who writes up an explanation of each one. The adjectives used also indicate the mission of that particular release--the LTS releases' names have attempted to indicate their relative stability: Dapper, Hardy, Lucid, Precise, and Trusty. Whereas the intermediate releases which debut new ideas and tools have nam…
Still stupid names, but at least with a goal in mind.
Can someone please get me inline with why we have Fedora in comparison to the CentOS community? It seems as if CentOS was more inline with the Redhat commercial enterprise edition. I've been a Mac user for a while, so my Unix has be branded on Darwin vs. others - so this seems like a legit place to get the difference nailed down. Thanks!
Fedora, on the other hand, is Red Hat’s “next generation”. Software packages have a change to mature, be soundly tested and stabilify there before being introduced to RHEL, to give those “enterprise” users a fair degree of security on system stability, at the expense of a slow lead time (for example, one of my employers still recommends RHEL 5.x, which is “current”, though 6.x is out. RHEL 5.x uses Kernel 2.6).