Les Mikesell wrote:
Tim Alberts wrote:
Unfortunately, everything that is beneficial about Fedora comes with
the price of 'not quite as well tested' status as RedHat or CentOS.
Honestly I feel like a backstabber by using CentOS because I've been
with Fedora since before Fedora (RedHat 5.1 was my first Linux
experience), and using CentOS is reaping the benefits with no
contribution.
If you go back that far, you should realize that fedora is
approximately like the old RH X.0 releases (X from 4 to 7) and Centos
is like the old RH X.2 or X.3 releases (free download of the tested
and more stable releases). The numbering scheme is just different
now. The for-pay-only RHEL is the part that diverged from the old
scheme.
Yeah there are different groups filling the roles all along the
life-cycle of each release version.
You could even say that CentOS provides what FedoraLegacy intended to
provide.
Not really the point of what I'm saying though...
Is there a way for Fedora to deal with more of the bugs before
releasing and still remain a free distribution? I don't know how.
If they do manage to do this, what would be the point of paying for
RedHat?
You aren't supposed to be paying for the software in RHEL, you pay for
the support service.
<splithair/> Of course.
Again my question, how can Fedora produce a better tested product? The
way it is, it's dis-respectful to the Fedora project for people to post
things like:
http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2008/02/11/fedora-makes-a-terrible-server/
because it is the work of the Fedora Project and the users who end up
testing the software and suffering through software bugs and poorly
packaged projects. CentOS and RedHat would be no where near as stable
without Fedora.
