On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what
Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
what the Fedora Server working group is coming up with?
To me what I would want of "Fedora Server" is simply a
solid base OS
and a solid set of package I can install on top of that depending on
what I want each particular server to do - sometimes that will be
postgres, sometimes it will be mysql and apache, sometimes it will
be exim and spamassassin.
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not anything
in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a thing". That
define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
The biggest reason for people preferring, say, Ubuntu over Fedora
for servers is probably not the existence of something called
"server" but rather the extended stable lifetime offered by LTS
And that's on the table as a possibility, but it would take a lot of
commitment from package maintainers. Another approach is to work on making
upgrades less disruptive, so you don't need to fear the EOL -- just schedule
an update and your stuff keeps working.
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>