On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 08:36 +0900, John Summerfield wrote: > Not Fedora exactly (it's the f9a), but yum has conspired with rpm > against me to remove every working kernel. yum ignored how many kernels > I wanted to keep, and (apparently) upgraded (as opposed to installed) > the kernel. > > It _could_ happen in Fedora, to anyone who had just one kernel (eg a new > install). Yes, and that's why I use a VM to install and test the new releases. If it completely fries the VM, I'm only out a few minutes time. > > Having a VM running a server in this environment may not be the absolute > > best practice, but it's certainly feasible. > > That's not the point I was speaking about. Running a VM _under Fedora_ > is. A VM under CentOS or RHEL is altogether different. RHEL/CentOS is > less likely to break with a new update, and since it presents > conservative "hardware" to the guest, Fedora is less likely to break too. What can I say? I do have multiple machines, and have dedicated servers, and I want something with a long lifecycle for those servers doing fairly standard things, like dns, http, imap, samba, etc. At the same time, I like to keep tabs on fairly state-of-the-art developments so that I can get a good idea about where my own development efforts should go. I have the luxury of multiple machines. If I didn't, running a VM with Fedora on the desktop and Centos as the guest would be a likely choice. I have some hardware (a tv capture card, for one) that isn't implemented in virtualized hardware. FWIW, I've had pretty good success running QEMU-KVM out of rawhide with multiple guest OSes. If I relied on the version available in RHEL or Centos, I wouldn't be nearly as happy. In the case of QEMU/KVM, the bleeding edge stuff is working better. Of course, that's just my experience, and I guess that it's possible that I've been fantastically lucky, but I don't think so. Dave
