On 28/01/14 14:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Fedora's drift towards being primarily a desktop OS (with other
considered secondarily if at all) ends up practically restricting uses
which people really do want Fedora for. That's bad for people who want to
use Fedora in innovative ways in server and cloud environments. Even
though we have a lot of sysadmin users and there are many examples of real
Fedora in production server environments, every time over the past decade
that someone has tried to figure out what Fedora Server might actually
mean, it's gotten stalled. This has left many sysadmins feeling like
either Fedora isn't a place that they can meaningfully contribute, or else
that their job is to be the Voice of No. Even when one doesn't want to
just be the project's "stop energy", it sometimes felt like there was
other option. Fedora.next should *give* that option for postive
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of sense
as a thing.
A desktop has some kind of common meaning that everybody can agree on in
terms of expecting a window manager and certain basic applications but
everybody will want something different of a server, and indeed will
want something different on each server.
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
The thing is, for the most part, that is what we already have!
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 releases.
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)