Les Mikesell wrote: > Ed Greshko wrote: > >>>> I would disagree about bleeding edge - Fedora tries to be current Which >>>> is what people were asking for at the time and still do so: very >>>> loudly. >>> Are there _really_ that many people asking for major changes in the >>> kernel to be done in mid-rev of a distro? Or are people actually just >>> asking for current userland apps and perhaps drivers for new sata >>> controllers and the like? >> >> [Very large snip] >> >> I'm having a bit of a difficult time following this particular topic. >> Too >> many people responding with "sound bites" to other people's "sound >> bites". >> >> I think, as I believe I heard you say, CentOS 3.x and Red Hat 7.3 work >> perfectly fine for you and that you've no particular reason to >> update. Yet, >> you have a bone to pick with Fedora...which you have tried using but >> doesn't >> meet your needs. Some may question why you would waste your time >> trying to >> do so it when what you are running fits your needs...but I suppose >> that is a >> different matter. > > Quick recap: on the server side, RHEL (and thus Centos) is just fine, > because the relevant server applications (apache, sendmail, named, > dhcpd, etc.) were feature-complete ages ago and all they need to do is > just keep running, following the same standards as when they were > installed. The side effect of having old application versions as the > price of keeping a reliable kernel isn't a big problem there. > > On the desktop side the opposite is true because the applications are > still evolving rapidly. So, when the distribution ties the same policies > to the kernel and apps, the price of a machine that you can trust to > keep working is applications that suck (RHEL,Centos) and to get current > apps (fedora) you have to take a wildly experimental kernel. > >> What I think would be helpful would be for you to list what you feel >> are the >> goals of the Fedora Project and why/how the Project has failed to meet up >> with those goals. > > To put it bluntly, I think the goal of the Fedora Project is to make a > system stable enough to use _only_ during the last few months before a > release of RHEL is cut. I haven't actually gone back through the > archives to check, but from memory I'll bet you find virtually no > instances of messages saying "my xxxx hardware doesn't work" or "my > machine won't boot" after updates during the relevant times in the FC3 > and FC6 releases. Everything was sweetness and light for those short > periods of time. Then the FC5 and F7 releases came, along with a return > to the "this doesn't work any more" messages which match my own > experience. I realize that most of the breakage comes from the > upstream kernel, but the distro packagers know how to deal with it when > it matters to them. > >> I think that would help, at least me, understand what point(s) you are >> trying to make. > > What I'd like to see is a distribution suitable for replacing MS windows > on most desktops and I think between RHEL and fedora, all of the parts > are available but no suitable product exists because to get the current > applications in fedora you have to take the unstable kernel that comes > with it (most of the time). Anyone who has deployed fedora on desktops > in a large enterprise, accepts the updates and has never had problems > please feel free to jump in and contradict me - I'd love to be proven > wrong here, but even FC6 recently pushed an update kernel that wouldn't > boot on some pretty mainstream Dell and IBM machines with scsi controllers. I'm pretty much OK with your summary...except for the last paragraph. I don't feel the intention/target of the Fedora Project was/is "Deployment in a large enterprise". If that is one of the intentions, I would like to know where it is stated. -- X-rated movies are all alike ... the only thing they leave to the imagination is the plot.
