Rahul Sundaram escribió:
Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram escribió:
> That has been the attitude from quite a bit of people, starting by
> the devs, Red Hat and others. I don't mean that Fedora is a bad
> system (by any means!! totally opposite!) it is an excellent home OS
> and home server where tasks are less critical, and due to the amount
> of updates released for it, it is a great Desktop system, but a lousy
> server for mission critical and key components on production servers
> (due to downtimes related to the amount of updates). I fought the
> idea of Fedora being relegated at first, but I've grown to understand
> why that is so... Maybe, and just maybe, we should market Fedora as
> an excellent home OS alternative (much more reliable than many
> others, and gives a LOT of home users a truly FREE [as in "gratis"
> and "liberty"] alternative platform). I'm sure Fedora would make also
> a GREAT corporate Workstation and Desktop OS, but due to its short
> life-cycle, it is kind of difficult keeping up, plus the overhead on
> IT staff for massive upgrades to the next version. Even with the
> extended life-expectancy of a Fedora system (IIRC it is now 13 months
> from release) it is still too short for a company with more than 50
> desktops to maintain and migrate every 13 months, it'd add too much
> of an overhead for the IT staff.
I had deployed over 100 desktops in Fedora working for my previous
company and they are happy using it. Me and many other colleagues and
various organizations and individuals are relying on Fedora for their
day to day needs which by my definition are production boxes. You are
just jumping to conclusions.
Sadly, no... That's the reality I've faced. I'm glad some companies are
willing to embrace Fedora for their desktops and server, I sure am,
maybe I've just not had the luck to see/work with them. What I've seen
is companies willing to try Linux and so in much the same way they use
Windows (i.e. with the assurance of service and support, which RHEL
offers), a lot turn their backs on Fedora (or simply overlook).
Surprisingly enough, I've seen quite a bit of Deiban deployments with
the argument of it having a longer lifespan than Fedora (go figure...
but who am I to argue with a decision maker who's already made his mind?
Especially when I have nothing to do in the process)
. The point was in
> regards to the community and the branches, and how "stable" Debian
> remains, compared to Fedora (i.e. longer release cycle for the
> "stable" tree, which is why [amongst other things] it is so widely
> deployed in servers), which is the main argument for a lot of
> "production environments" to reject Fedora in favor for RHEL or
> CentOS or another more "stable" distro, in the understanding here
> that by "stable" I mean a slower paced evolution and longer product
You mean robust here. However people do install and prefer a Linux box
with faster updates for certain types of servers and systems. In
FUDCon Boston a end user was arguing passionately that Fedora is what
he preferred to install in his server boxes due to his unique needs in
HPC (High Performance Clustering) environment.
Yes, maybe that's the word I was
looking for. Thanks for the clarification.
> Thanks for the link, much appreciated. I remember reading this
> interview back in the day, and I know that Max is working hard in
> trying to erase the "stigmas" of Fedora, and believe me, I *do* share
> his points... Until the real world steps in... But as he himself
> says, nothing is set in stone in Fedora, and it will evolve, maybe it
> will do so that it may even be embraced in production environments
> (and I do believe it has what it takes to do so)... the question is
> "Do the people responsible of decision making for such environments
It is not our decision and unless we really know all the various
factors, we would not able to make any guesses on whether it is a
responsible decision or not. Your generalized claim is just not true
in many cases.
I do realize that my claim isn't general (and I'm glad it is
not) I was
only talking about personal experience, nothing more. I don't mean to be
judgmental, rather pass on what arguments have been given to me. If
anything the consequence here is that there has not been enough Linux
penetration in the corporate arena, and that more information about
Linux is needed. Which means also a marketing opportunity for Fedora.
Our job is to produce the best possible system within the constraints
of our time and resources to meet our objectives. Not to be judgmental
about how it is being used or deployed.