On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 06:41, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Craig White wrote: > > I guess it's just me but I tend to stick to proven distro's for > > production servers. I wouldn't necessarily put FC-1 in that category and > > obviously, not FC-2. Obviously Red Hat considers their RHEL to be the > > 'stable' product and Fedora to be the experimental/development product. > > The philosophy has changed since RHL. > > > > That being said, I guess in the final analysis, what you have done here > > is commit the proverbial spin yours and everyone else's wheels. > > > > Consider please: > > - it ain't a bug if it isn't in bugzilla. > > - if you have a problem, the moment you 'rollback', your problem report > > is relegated to the equivalent of noise to the list since no suggested > > fixes can be experimented. > > > > I am amazed at the number of people that don't recognize the > > experimental nature of the Fedora distribution and are content to be > > part of the problem rather than part of the solution. > > > That's the funny thing. Every time somebody complains that FC is > "unstable" or "experimental" (usually threatening to move to another > distro in the same breath), about a dozen acolytes jump in and slam the > OP. Those of us who are becoming more and more unhappy with FC miss the > solidity of RHL. We're lifting our voices, hoping for a positive response > but getting slammed instead. > > I'm still running RHL 9 for my home server because, by the time I was > satisfied that FC 1 was working relatively well on a test PC, FC 2 came > out. Well, that meant that my FC 1 install would only be supported for > another couple of months. (Yes, I know about fedora legacy, but they're > swamped and don't have a track record yet.) So, I held off to see how FC > 2 would work. It doesn't. There are a *lot* of things broken with FC 2, > several of which are show-stoppers for me. (Is *anybody* *ever* gonna fix > OpenSSL so that dovecot will work with it???) > > I can't afford to run RHEL ES at home, and the WS doesn't have all of the > services that I run for myself. I'm not rich, nor am I a corporation. > I'm just a guy who wants to have his little 866MHz PIII Celeron humming > away doing what I need it to. Fedora would be just fine if I could count > on installing it and then being able to leave it for a year or two without > having to worry about whether or not the security patches would dry up. > > I dunno. I loved RHL enough to convince my boss to move from Windoze to > linux in our data center. But now that we've gotten the funding and are > doing evaluations, other distros are now looking good. We're especially > impressed with SuSe's Open Exchange. > > Sorry for the rambling. It just feels like my best friend died. :( ---- I fully understand your feeling - and I see Red Hat's point too...that trying to maintain a 'stable' distro for free (RHL) is counterproductive to having a 'stable' distro for businesses (RHEL). Clearly Fedora has not been, nor is it intended to be a 'stable' distribution. I can tell you that my 'home' server is still running RH 8.0, can't see any reason to upgrade it. My desktops are FC-1 and FC-2, though I will upgrade the FC-1 when I get time...my experiences thus far with Fedora have been great as a desktop OS. As for the office, it seems to me that the RHEL is a pretty darn good value, support, upgrade/update assurance and stable - but of course, when you talk about RHEL, or Debian stable, etc., you aren't talking about cutting edge 2.6 kernels, or the updates included on a lot of projects and even the security patches are backported onto older versions. That being said, I think the issues you are raising are shared by many and it wouldn't surprise me to see something like FC-1 being maintained as a 'stable' product for some time. Obviously, other distro's are available and they are certainly valid options if they can deliver the packaging and stability consistent with your expectations. Craig
