could Fedora please reverse its policy re End-Of-Life [closed]
Internet-researching, I've seen many situations where the user had a problem upgrading. I would speculate that most problems of this nature are resolved by a complete re-install to the newer version, rather than an upgrade. In my opinion, fedora CAN NOT anticipate or test/prevent upgrade anomalies from a wide variety of 3rd party software.
I never upgrade. I manually keep a notes_install.txt log and use this whenever I am re-installing. My re-install takes about 8 hours (e.g. 30 minutes alone for TexLive, plus time spent determining how the installation process of miscellaneous software has changed given that the software has changed). Further, I always wait for 3 months after a new version is being released before installing it, to lessen the chance of running into an anomaly. Based on your new end-of-life policy, I will have to spend 8 hours re-installing, EVERY 12-13 MONTHS, AND RISK new version anomalies.
I understand that altering your End-Of-Life policy to (for example) 36 months rather than 13 months is BURDENSOME on fedora.org. However, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM FEDORA?
I am wondering why you think the upgrade doesn't work, when you "never upgrade". In my experience, upgrading to a new release is very stable. The machine I am working on right now, was F24 originally has gone through 4 upgrading processes without a single hiccup. And so will it do in a few weeks for F29.
I internet-researched and discovered people having trouble upgrading.
Still it’s not clear to me why a longer support term would improve the upgrade process, and whether LTS distros cause no upgrade problems.
@zug234zwang: If you are not interested in regular feature updates, you should consider using RHEL/CentOS or Debian instead.