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, 08:41 AM
"Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)"
 
Default

Rahul Sundaram пишет:

Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:

Matej Cepl пишет:

On 2008-10-10, 13:13 GMT, Mark Bidewell wrote:

I would submit that CentOS/RHEL IS the equivalent of
Fedora LTS.


I would venture even to say that CentOS *is* Fedora LTS
I agree what CentOS is more stable and has more time support, but it
is totally not equivalent of Fedora. Just see CVS branches of programs
for Fedora and RHEL. So, many (notably new and not highly famous)
programs is not present in RHEL and CentOS.


About 2000 more in EPEL. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL.
Participate, if you would like to see your (missing) favourites as well.


Rahul

Off course. This is not reproach. I'm only constant fact - CentOS is far
from "Fedora LTS" equivalent. So, I'm choose Fedora and participate in
it. And, with think what Fedora no needed LTS, any similar it is highly
needed for servers, I thought sometimes.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 08:49 AM
"Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)"
 
Default

Jon Stanley пишет:
> Well, in all fairness, Fedora's stated goal is to advance the state of

free software. You get that by being bleeding-edge. Unfortunately,
being bleeding edge also means not being suitable for production
environments - these are two fundamentally incompatible goals. This is
why Red Hat Linux split into two - Fedora and RHEL. RHEL is a
derivative distribution of Fedora.
All sounds good, by RHEL is not free. So, in this case many people
pointed to CentOS, and I agree with it, but it is even not RedHat or
Fedora initiative.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 08:54 AM
"Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)"
 
Default

Arthur Pemberton пишет:

2008/10/10 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:

Dmitry Butskoy wrote:

Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:

any chance to increase the life of fedora releases ?

or fedora will be only blending edge ?

In my opinion fedora is losing space from centos and ubuntu

...


The brazilian government, one of the biggest Fedora Case of the world is
changing from Fedora/ Red Hat to Ubuntu/Debian.

The problem was at an initial point, when Fedora was considered "for
enthusiasts only". A lot of previous "RedHat Linux enthusiasts" just
switch to CentOS (and similar RHEL-based systems), no more using Fedora,
because "it is marked as a non-for-production system even by its creators".


The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora. CentOS's
goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a
system and run it for years.



They switched to Debian and Ubuntu. There is no evidence that they
considered Centos.

Apropos, is it very interesting - why?? Why Wikipedia was not considered
Centos to migrate?. I'm not found any thinks about it in article.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 09:28 AM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 09:57] :
>
> Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
>> 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.

There are few distributions that I consider as free as Fedora and
none that I would consider more free.

> 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.

This sounds like you have an issue with the entreprise distributions and
you're trying to shoehorn Fedora into being a stopgap solution for it.
Why don't you work with the entreprise distributions' communities to
find a better solution ?

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 10:21 AM
"Christof Damian"
 
Default

2008/10/13 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <forum@ru.bir.ru>:
> Arthur Pemberton пишет:
>> They switched to Debian and Ubuntu. There is no evidence that they
>> considered Centos.
>>
> Apropos, is it very interesting - why?? Why Wikipedia was not considered
> Centos to migrate?. I'm not found any thinks about it in article.

I think they just wanted to switch to Ubuntu, probably some personal
preference of some of the administrators. Maybe also some pushing from
the Ubuntu "sales" guys.

Using Fedora for web servers was in my opinion always a bad choice.
You just don't want to upgrade your servers that often.

And nowadays I wouldn't even use Fedora for a desktop which I
need/expect for work and expect working after every update. It just
happens too often that my mouse, keyboard, audio, wireless and now X
stopped working and I have to go browsing bugzilla and fedoraforum. By
now I changed my firewall and backup server to CentOS, because I
couldn't be bothered with keeping those updated with Fedora any more.
I used Fedora Legacy for a short while, but the community was just to
small to provide the updates in time. At work we just have RHEL &
CentOS.

I think the target audience for Fedora are Linux developers or fan
boys (that would be me) who want to be at the bleeding edge of
development and don't mind debugging and reporting bugs. Most of these
are probably even using rawhide instead of the release installs.

Maybe this should be made a bit clearer to users who install it, as I
expect it to get worse and not better.

None of this is meant negative by the way. I got exactly what I wanted
and don't want to change.

--
Christof Damian

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 10:32 AM
Nicu Buculei
 
Default

Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:

Jon Stanley пишет:
> Well, in all fairness, Fedora's stated goal is to advance the state of

free software. You get that by being bleeding-edge. Unfortunately,
being bleeding edge also means not being suitable for production
environments - these are two fundamentally incompatible goals. This is
why Red Hat Linux split into two - Fedora and RHEL. RHEL is a
derivative distribution of Fedora.
All sounds good, by RHEL is not free. So, in this case many people


It may not be free but id Free.

pointed to CentOS, and I agree with it, but it is even not RedHat or
Fedora initiative.


Does it matter who's the initiative from? if the bits, the license and
the price are right...


--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 12:22 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 22:32 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> 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.
Is Fedora's infrastructure working such kind of ineffective, "keeping
the build infrastructure alive" is such an overwhelming amount of
effort?

If so, I am very sure, EPEL4 will be discontinued, once RHEL6 will be
released, because of the additional effort, right?

Of cause this will not happen. More likely RH will assign people to
maintain it - See, no secret plans, just "hegemony of interests".


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-13-2008, 12:36 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:



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.


There are few distributions that I consider as free as Fedora and
none that I would consider more free.


OK, but how much of that freedom originates in Fedora? I don't see how
omitting more things from a distribution helps anyone. But that's a
different issue.


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.


This sounds like you have an issue with the entreprise distributions and
you're trying to shoehorn Fedora into being a stopgap solution for it.
Why don't you work with the entreprise distributions' communities to
find a better solution ?


The issue is that the enterprise distributions don't put their own brand
name on the early development work and ship it so users have a smooth
transition through development, testing and the final release. But the
reason that doesn't happen is that Fedora fills that role except for
providing a smooth transition to something production-ready. I don't
think it is me 'shoehorning' Fedora into the role that RH X.0 releases
used to fill.


--
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, 01:06 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 14:48] :
>
> The issue is that the enterprise distributions don't put their own brand
> name on the early development work and ship it so users have a smooth
> transition through development, testing and the final release. But the

Again, this sounds like a problem that the entreprise distributions are
responsible. Working with them to release betas seems like the best
solution to your problem, IMHO.

Emmanuel

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

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:

* Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 09:57] :
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.


We do not stop support.
At any one time, two versions of Fedora are maintained.


How does that amount to not stopping support for a particular version?

The supported versions may be wildly different at any time and the next
version may not be suitable for what you want to keep running. For a
simple example, what would you have done if your production environment
involved packages from the jpackage repository through the time that the
changes in fedora made it incompatible?


--
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 07:53 PM.

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