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...
The point I was trying to make was that in the old days when RH made its
name by getting a community of users involved, the users who tested
the X.0 versions and reported the problems that made the fixes possible
were eventually given access to the X.2/X.3 versions containing those
fixes. Fedora/RH no longer works that way. The community putting up
with the X.0 problems never gets a stable update unless they switch to
Centos. The next fedora release will be like the old next X.0's were.
Again my question, how can Fedora produce a better tested product?
Fedora has the option of rebranding the Centos packages for a long-term
supported version or building their own similar version from the RHEL
sources. I think it would have been trivial to slipstream the FC1
updates to a copy of the Centos 3.x update repro, the FC3 -> Centos4,
and FC6 ->Centos5. In fact I think there are people who have done that
with yum even though it wasn't planned to work.
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.
I don't think so. Post something on the fedora developers site about
focusing on stability and you'll find no one is interested. In fact
they will point out their objectives:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives are to stay on the leading edge
and close to upstream development instead. It is not disrespectful to
say that they are meeting their objectives.
CentOS and RedHat would be no where near as stable
without Fedora.
No one says they would - but that doesn't make fedora a reasonable
server platform.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
