On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:22, Tim wrote:
> I'd say it has everything to do with the same mentality: We must have a
> product by X date, doesn't matter if it's broken, it must be out.
That's the point of fedora. Bugs don't get fixed until they are
found. They aren't found until someone uses the code. If you
want to run the newest code, you get the newest bugs along with
it - and you get to help fix them.
> Red Hat has certainly lost the place it used to have. Before you had a
> system that you could use on a server (that's definitely not something
> you want to be rebuilding every few months), or a work station (again,
> something you'd prefer not to have to rebuild often, but less of a
> hassle than a server).
Red Hat still offers this option through the Red Hat Enterprise
versions. They continue to provide the security and bugfix updates
for 5 years on these releases. If you don't want, or can't pay
for the Service contract, use the free Centos version that is
rebuilt from the RH source RPMs.
> *ix is really more of a server OS (all those servers, a system that
> takes an age to boot, something that's meant to be running 24/7) than a
> workstation OS, but this VERY short lifespan doesn't fit that well.
*ix server apps were stable and feature-complete long ago. If that
is all you are running, fedora probably is wrong for your purpose.
On the other hand, fedora does make a good workstation OS and there
you do want to take advantage of the most recent work on the desktop
apps which are still evolving.
> The ditching of what was Red Hat Linux into short lived Fedora has
> seriously pissed off a number of former Red Hat fans, and I don't blame
> them.
They were only pissed until they saw that the split into 2 different
distributions helps each focus on a different purpose.
> As I said, BSD looks most favourable. They don't seem to be pushing out
> a new distro just to be cool. There's a new one when there's compelling
> reasons that a new distro is an advantage.
You are dreaming if you think any *bsd has had the amount of real-world
testing under the conditions that the fedora/RH codebase gets. You'll
find a few gurus that can keep a few machines running forever without
missing a beat because they know the code inside and out and their
view of the *bsd world sounds great. But if you want a 'stick a CD
in about anything and get a working server' distribution I think its
the wrong place to look.
> I see Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu doing the same things: Rushing out
> releases on a set date, the release being full of faults, never
> releasing a fixed version (as a whole), and the next release being a
> radical change (not the bugs ironed out of the prior release, but a
> change in tack).
You are describing fedora, not RHEL or Centos here.
> It's like committees reorganising themselves, lots of
> action, little tangible benefits, and lots of new problems, continually.
The point is that at the *end* of a fedora version cycle most
of the bugs are fixed - and they wouldn't have been without the
participants.
> For hecks sake, whichever OS it is, get it right, get it running
> smoothly, *THEN* start designing the new, better, one. Don't just keep
> making different ones.
That's why there are two versions, one is for getting new things right,
the other for people who don't mind old stuff as long as it is getting
security updates. You won't ever have a next 'stable' version if you
don't find and apply the fixes to the current 'new' version.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
