FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-13-2008, 12:45 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Henrique Junior <henriquecsj@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to share with you an situation related to Fedora's time
> of life that comes to me in recent days.
> I was recently promoted to Software Manager in the governmental
> partition where I work. Next year we've plans to migrate 500 Linux
> desktop stations and, in the last month, finished the migration of all
> servers to CentOS.
> The question that worries me is that, despite the willingness to use
> Fedora, dealing with an "end of life" of 13 months can make Fedora
> impractical in these 500 desktops. I'll be pressed to use Ubuntu and
> even got to think about maintain by myself an repository for
> maintaining, maybe, the most important RPMs always updated even if the
> Fedora come to the inevitable 13 months of use.
> Perhaps it is time to seek volunteers to bring back the Fedora Legacy
> and see if more people are interested this time.

Isn't CentOS enough for your desktop use?

Futzing around with two philosphies of how to handle packages,
configuration, etc is very definitely not fun. We had such a setup for a
time (Solaris on SPARC servers and Red Hat on workstations (yes, it was
long ago)), and we moved the SPARCs to Red Hat as soon as practical.

Later we moved to Fedora everywhere (needed in lab workstations, where
users demand latest bling), but it was a pain on the server side, so we
settled on CentOS there.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 12:53 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Robert Locke <lists@ralii.com> wrote:

[...]

> What I think is lacking (but seem to be being worked on), is a
> convenient "upgrade" process within the "family". So that if I use
> Fedora 9 or 10, that I could "in-place" upgrade to RHEL/CentOS 6 when it
> comes out.

By the time RHEL/CentOS comes out, the Fedora from which it branched has
long moved past it...

> Historically, using RHEL/CentOS for desktop has been problematic for
> some given their "stability" and "lack of movement".

For many desktop uses the latest bling is definitely not a requirement,
more the contrary. Sure, on notebooks stuff like WiFi is required (and
needs a newer kernel, etc). Perhaps a line with the required packages
(paralell to EPEL) would be doable?

> But it does appear
> that this is changing. Looking at RHEL/CentOS 5.2 compared to 5.0,
> there are some actual version upgrades to some of the packages, so
> perhaps it becomes more feasible for more people as a desktop.

It has always been that selected packages get version upgrades during
RHEL's life. I'd suspect that happens when the pain of backporting gets too
large and the visible differences are small enough to not make a
difference. I.e., it helps you not a bit to get an "up to date desktop".
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 12:59 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:



Yes but what is the point of developing for it?


There's a notion called freedom that you may have heard of.


And how is that specific to Fedora? I meant as opposed to a system
where you can actually deploy something that needs stability.


With a planned progression to an enterprise version, that would not
really be a migration away from fedora but the expected end point where


Again, this supposes that one of Fedora's end goals is to easily
permit its users to migrate to other distributions. This isn't the
case.


Agreed, Fedora does not seem suitable as is.

you are permitted to continue using anything you've contributed or
developed for your own use, staying in the same community instead of
having all previous work dumped out the window at the end of a cycle.


When a Fedora version release reaches EOL, users have the possibility
of upgrading to the next release. These days, they even have the option
of upgrading to the release following that one if they wait long enough.
I have no idea where you get the notion that we're guiding users to a
"planned dead-end" or that, once a Fedora release is EOL-ed, they have
to dump out their work out the window.


I've used Fedora... Every version ends support quickly. Frequently the
next version has completely incompatible versions of libraries,
programs, and API's. It's not something you can run in production.



If your goal is to use an distribution that promises ABI/API
compatibility, long term support and other "enterprise" features, there
are a whole host of distributions for which these are goals.
Why not use them ?


Local development for things you want to put into production progresses
at about the same rate as the system itself. If you wait for an
enterprise version's release before starting, you'll be about a year and
a half behind. If you develop on the previous enterprise version, there
will be a huge version jump in libraries, database versions, jvms, etc.
that will require changes and not take advantage of new capabilities.
For all the same reasons that the Fedora components need to be developed
together, so does local development for the things you want to run on it
- but Fedora never turns into something you can use for a long term or
where you need reliability.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 01:23 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:

* Les Mikesell [10/10/2008 19:45] :
What we need for the same effect now is
for the versions of fedora that provide the initial RHEL cuts to offer a
seamless update to the subsequent matching CentOS, repointing to its
update repositories for continued support.


I'ld expect migration guides and packages from Fedora to $DISTRIBUTION
to be written by the $DISTRIBUTION community, not Fedora's.


Why, when Fedora is the one stopping support for the users that adapted
to a particular Fedora version? I'm suggestion this migration as a
substitute for the ongoing support that is lacking.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 01:32 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel.seyman@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 16:51] :
> > Which work? Not shutting down builders and other infras for the EOL
> > branches?

> Not just not shutting them down but actively maintaining them, which
> would require more work than maintaining the non-EOL branches.

I fail to see what the big job is here, but whatever.

> I'm sorry but, until there's a community committed to actually doing
> the work,

Backporting fixes, handling bug reports, ... Note that here you _can't_
rely on upstream, they generally aren't interested in ancient versions, so
this is /much/ more work than regular maintainership.

> asking that infrastructure be created/adapted/maintained is an
> unreasonable request, IMHO.

Nodz.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 01:59 AM
Robert Locke
 
Default

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 21:53 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Robert Locke <lists@ralii.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What I think is lacking (but seem to be being worked on), is a
> > convenient "upgrade" process within the "family". So that if I use
> > Fedora 9 or 10, that I could "in-place" upgrade to RHEL/CentOS 6 when it
> > comes out.
>
> By the time RHEL/CentOS comes out, the Fedora from which it branched has
> long moved past it...

Really? You saying that Fedora 7 came out before RHEL5? Looking at the
calendar, it's a pretty simple Fedora Core 6, RHEL/CentOS 5, Fedora 7.
I don't see that "long moved past", unless you like to run Rawhide, at
which point, why are we talking about a stable LTS?

>
> > Historically, using RHEL/CentOS for desktop has been problematic for
> > some given their "stability" and "lack of movement".
>
> For many desktop uses the latest bling is definitely not a requirement,
> more the contrary. Sure, on notebooks stuff like WiFi is required (and
> needs a newer kernel, etc). Perhaps a line with the required packages
> (paralell to EPEL) would be doable?

Pick a side please. If the latest bling is not a requirement, then
explain why CentOS is insufficient in providing the "long term
solution"?

I'm still not seeing the "need" for an LTS Fedora....

--Rob


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 02:19 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Even so, some people claim to have done successful upgrades from
> fedora to the corresponding EL/Centos with just a few quirks that
> probably could have been avoided with a little central planning. That
> is, even if it is impossible to coordinate the changes that lead to
> RHEL/Centos, there should be a way to have the final fedora update do
> a clean conversion - or at least better than most users could do on
> their own.

Why on earth would anybody start out on Fedora, and then move over to
RHEL/CentOS when it nears EOL? Better start off on RHEL/CentOS...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 02:25 AM
"Horst H. von Brand"
 
Default

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> First you have to give someone a reason to want to migrate to
> Fedora. With a planned progression to an enterprise version, that
> would not really be a migration away from fedora but the expected end
> point where you are permitted to continue using anything you've
> contributed or developed for your own use, staying in the same
> community instead of having all previous work dumped out the window at
> the end of a cycle. I'll point out again that this is the way Red Hat
> developed its popularity, although it was probably a mistake to have
> tried to support every release forever.

Fedora is _not_ enterprise, it is _not_ in its goals, it is _not_ it's
target audience. Why would anybody start on Fedora planning to "graduate"
to EL?
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 02:28 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Horst H. von Brand wrote:



Even so, some people claim to have done successful upgrades from
fedora to the corresponding EL/Centos with just a few quirks that
probably could have been avoided with a little central planning. That
is, even if it is impossible to coordinate the changes that lead to
RHEL/Centos, there should be a way to have the final fedora update do
a clean conversion - or at least better than most users could do on
their own.


Why on earth would anybody start out on Fedora, and then move over to
RHEL/CentOS when it nears EOL? Better start off on RHEL/CentOS...


That puts you about a year and a half behind if you wait for the release
before starting. Or you are developing to wildly different libraries,
database versions, etc., etc. if you develop on the current version for
something you plan to run on the next one.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 02:41 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Horst H. von Brand wrote:

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:


First you have to give someone a reason to want to migrate to
Fedora. With a planned progression to an enterprise version, that
would not really be a migration away from fedora but the expected end
point where you are permitted to continue using anything you've
contributed or developed for your own use, staying in the same
community instead of having all previous work dumped out the window at
the end of a cycle. I'll point out again that this is the way Red Hat
developed its popularity, although it was probably a mistake to have
tried to support every release forever.


Fedora is _not_ enterprise, it is _not_ in its goals, it is _not_ it's
target audience. Why would anybody start on Fedora planning to "graduate"
to EL?


For exactly the same reason that people used to use RH X.0 versions for
development and testing, planning to run their programs on X.2 as both
their local development and the distribution mature. That's what made
RH popular. And there is no equivalent now that Fedora never matures to
a supported stable version.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org