Re: Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Arthur Pemberton wrote:

 Of course they do, I'd be surprised to hear if anyone has shipped a 100%
 bug free kernel, whether it be Linux, Solaris, AIX, Windows or whatever.
 The point though is that RHEL is less of a moving target, if you current
 setup works then an update to the kernel is less likely to break
 anything, than say Fedora which frequently ships new versions of the
 kernel.

One would hope that that these people complaining abut imperfect
kernels in RHEL are find these bugs on their test boxes _before_ they
deploy to production.

Absolutely, testing is good practice (regardless of your server OS environment) before live deployment. Having said that, even the most diligent of sysadmins can be caught out occasionally, but it stands to reason that a new kernel update which contains a couple of bug fixes to the same basic version is likely to present fewer surprises than going from 2.6.23 -> 2.6.24 for example.

 > And the second you add a driver and/or XFS on to RHEL5 you are
 > now tainted and *UNSUPPORTED*.

 Compared to Fedora where you are *UNSUPPORTED* at the offset?

is XFS even in the vanilla kernel?

I believe it is, I did a quick search on google and ironically it brough up a post about xfs oopsing in 2.6.24 :-P



--
Ian Chapman.


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux