On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 01:11, Craig White wrote: > > no matter how many times you make this statement/comparison to k12ltsp - > > it is absolutely meaningless to the general distribution of Fedora - > > k12ltsp has a specific bent and Fedora is after all a general > > distribution so what k12ltsp does to update is meaningless to this > > discussion - i.e. Fedora users. > > Maybe I'm not saying it correctly. The ltsp and educational programs > are added as package groups that you can pick or not during the > install. Anyone who wants a stock fedora workstation/server install can > download the k12ltsp isos and ignore the extra stuff during the install > unless they pick 'everything'. And they'll get the updates that were > available at the time the release was made. In other words, everyone > using k12ltsp *is* a fedora user. Even if you pick 'everything' you can > generally ignore the extra stuff if you don't need/like it. ---- OK - would be difficult for this list to help someone troubleshoot since their installer cd's wouldn't match. I can't speak to the philosophy of k12ltsp but it seems that choosing Fedora Core as their base is rather curious since it has a short lifespan so perhaps rapid spinning of updates is part and parcel of their project. It would seem to me to be much more logical for them to use CentOS 4 - but hey, that's just my opinion. As for Fedora, you no doubt saw Bill Nottingham's notice of FC-2 transfer to fedora-legacy - simultaneous to the release of FC-4 test 2 as per their stated intentions. Given their intentions to keep Fedora as a short lived, test platform and the fact that at this point in time, when you believe it would be appropriate for a respin of the iso's, they are working on the next release and have pretty much put the 'current' FC-3 release on autopilot - fixing only what is necessary. ---- > I can't blame RH9 for omitting a driver that wasn't available at the > time of the release. However, I probably have more than 50 boxes > with the SuperMicro 370DER MB that came with RH9 pre-installed (I > assume that RH gets something from that...) and was surprised that I > couldn't install FC2 due to this bug: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124495 which > would have been next to impossible to work around. Note the lack > of resolution to the bug. ---- again - that ignores all evidence to the issue... - Not sure why you would assume that Red Hat derived something from the pre-install of RHL 9 on those boxes - I would think not but perhaps you know something I don't know. - bug was fixed in future kernel releases (remember FC-2 was early 2.6 kernel release and the first for a Red Hat of any variety) - Fedora isn't considered to be a 'stable' os by Fedora stated intentions <http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html> - RHEL is the committed product and that is the one that they re-spin iso's on several times a year. That is the product that they are committed to providing support, stability and adequate testing. Fedora is pretty much an 'as is' distribution. It's curious that those who wish to hitch their wagon to an 'as is' distribution should offer surprise when they don't get the service that they would get from the officially supported product. Of course, the officially supported product is not free but the clone products such as CentOS - which I know you are aware of are certainly free and being spun directly from RHEL releases, stable, consistent and frequently re-spun. Craig
