* Larry Len Rainey <llrainey15@gmail.com> [03-26-23 14:14]:
TW-GNOME:~ # uname -a Linux TW-GNOME 6.2.8-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Mar 22 18:56:06 UTC 2023 (221c28f) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux TW-GNOME:~ #
[root@fedora ~]# uname -a Linux fedora 6.2.7-200.fc37.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Mar 17 16:16:00 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@fedora ~]#
suse15r2:~ # uname -a Linux suse15r2 5.14.21-150400.24.49-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Mar 7 08:07:05 UTC 2023 (bad820e) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux suse15r2:~ #
If Fedora were stable it would still be on Kernel 5 not Kernel 6.
On 3/26/23 13:02, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-03-26 10:34, Larry Len Rainey wrote:
If Fedora is not - why is it on the same versions of code as Tumbleweed.
If you want a specific answer, you need to share the context that led you to that conclusion. I cannot explain what I cannot see. Any answer that anyone gives you to a question so broad and vague is going to be largely speculation.
Very probably, the explanation is going to be a mix of factors, including: the major release of Fedora that you're examining was recent, and few projects have made breaking changes since its release. Without breaking changes, there's no cause to hold back updates to those packages.
I have multiple Fedora Virtual Machines for testing. It updates just as often as Tumbleweed. Sometimes a day later or a day earlier.
Update frequency isn't the defining characteristic of a rolling release. The absence of defined lifecycles and predictable dates for breaking or feature releases is.
12 years old on Tw
Linux crash.wahoo.no-ip.org 6.2.6-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Mar 13 10:57:27 UTC 2023 (fa1a4c6) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc