On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 07:58:10AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 07:41, Paul Gear wrote:
That's not what they claim. At http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html they claim Fedora is for "Early adopters, enthusiasts, developers". The rest of their products (WS, ES, AS) are for business. There is no "consumer" product.
Okay, change my "have" to "had" and I am now correct. Red Hat _used_ to refer to the RHL series as "consumer."
Fedora is no longer "consumer" like RHL was. I stand corrected.
We now have "Fedora" and "enterprise" : "ethusiast" and "business"
Thanks, that sums up what was on my mind while catching up on the last couple of days of this list.
Let's home Fedora Legacy can provide the missing middle road between the two existing options. Or some other third-party support service, we will see what the future may bring.
David (who is also looking into ways to convince work (= university) to allocate some budget for RHEL...)
Quoting David Jansen jansen@strw.leidenuniv.nl:
Let's home Fedora Legacy can provide the missing middle road between the two existing options.
"Fedora Legacy"??? I'm new here so my ignorance is far fetching (so feel free to "smack" me ;-).
Or some other third-party support service, we will see what the future may bring.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see:
Two "Fedora" tags: A) "Bleeding Edge Kernel/GLibC" (like old RHL .0 releases) B) "RHEL Compatible Kernel/GLibC" (not necessarily ABI, but at least API compatible)
But I'll settle for any "well integration tested" 'Fedora Core' at this point. I'm hoping Red Hat puts enough people on Fedora that we have just that within 6 months. I would call that a "success."
Everything else will come with time and effort. Red Hat can't do it all, but I believe they will do all they can to help the community. They have yet to tell me otherwise.
David (who is also looking into ways to convince work (= university) to allocate some budget for RHEL...)
I hear you. Maybe if things stop working that _might_ get management to free up the dough.
I don't remember where, probably the Fedora site, but I read that the goal of Fedora will be to produce a quality product on the bleeding edge but not a dumping ground for partial or non-working modules. (my terrible paraphrase). I suspect that Fedora will work well for a period of time, but maintenance on one version will cease upon release of the second version after it. It might be that it will be stable enough to operate for long periods but just not be protected from the vulnerabilities that may later be found.
My 2c.
Buck
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bryan J. Smith Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:25 PM To: David Jansen Cc: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fedora and the System Administrator -- "have" -> "had"
Quoting David Jansen jansen@strw.leidenuniv.nl:
Let's home Fedora Legacy can provide the missing middle road between the two existing options.
"Fedora Legacy"??? I'm new here so my ignorance is far fetching (so feel free to "smack" me ;-).
Or some other third-party support service, we will see what the future
may bring.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see:
Two "Fedora" tags: A) "Bleeding Edge Kernel/GLibC" (like old RHL .0 releases) B) "RHEL Compatible Kernel/GLibC" (not necessarily ABI, but at least API compatible)
But I'll settle for any "well integration tested" 'Fedora Core' at this point. I'm hoping Red Hat puts enough people on Fedora that we have just that within 6 months. I would call that a "success."
Everything else will come with time and effort. Red Hat can't do it all, but I believe they will do all they can to help the community. They have yet to tell me otherwise.
David (who is also looking into ways to convince work (= university) to allocate some budget for RHEL...)
I hear you. Maybe if things stop working that _might_ get management to free up the dough.
Quoting Buck RHList@towncorp.net:
I don't remember where, probably the Fedora site, but I read that the goal of Fedora will be to produce a quality product on the bleeding edge but not a dumping ground for partial or non-working modules. (my terrible paraphrase).
That's good news. I'm sure the "Fedora Core" tag will further enforce that.
I suspect that Fedora will work well for a period of time, but maintenance on one version will cease upon release of the second version after it.
I read 2-3 months for "Fedora Core," giving people time to test, transition, etc...
It might be that it will be stable enough to operate for long periods but just not be protected from the vulnerabilities that may later be found.
And that's fine with me. People who need 1+ of support need to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, only free speech.
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 13:07, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Quoting Buck RHList@towncorp.net:
I suspect that Fedora will work well for a period of time, but maintenance on one version will cease upon release of the second version after it.
I read 2-3 months for "Fedora Core," giving people time to test, transition, etc...
It winds up being 6-10 months per release,a s the 2-3 months starts after the following release. So if Fedora Core 2 is released 6 months after FC1, then you have 2-3 months from FC2 of maintenance. You may know that, just clarifying for those who would otherwise say "what 2-3 months, that's too damned short!" ;)
And that's fine with me. People who need 1+ of support need to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, only free speech.
Eyyup.
Buck wrote:
... It might be that it will be stable enough to operate for long periods but just not be protected from the vulnerabilities that may later be found.
That's a self-contradictory statement. If a product is not protected from vulnerabilities, it is not stable enough to operate for long periods. And that's what makes Fedora unsuitable for university, non-profit, and small business server environments.
May I ask, what alternative are you looking at?
Buck
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Paul Gear Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 6:34 PM To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fedora and the System Administrator -- "have" -> "had"
Buck wrote:
... It might be that it will be stable enough to operate for long periods but just not be protected from the vulnerabilities that may later be found.
That's a self-contradictory statement. If a product is not protected from vulnerabilities, it is not stable enough to operate for long periods. And that's what makes Fedora unsuitable for university, non-profit, and small business server environments.
Buck wrote:
May I ask, what alternative are you looking at? ... -----Original Message----- That's a self-contradictory statement. If a product is not protected from vulnerabilities, it is not stable enough to operate for long periods. And that's what makes Fedora unsuitable for university, non-profit, and small business server environments.
It's a good thing i'm not Michael S. :-)
I'm not looking at any particular alternatives yet - RHL9 is still supported, and my machines are staying on it for the time being. I'm waiting for RH to come up with a reasonable alternative for us non-profits.
Attn: Tom Callaway, i still haven't heard anything from anyone at Red Hat on this note...
Attn: Tom Callaway, i still haven't heard anything from anyone at Red Hat on this note...
Yes, I'm still with you Paul. Don't worry, you've not been forgotten.
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader
"The author's mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to be published." -- Aldous Huxley
-
Bill Anderson -
Bryan Smith -
Buck -
David Jansen -
Paul Gear -
Tom Callaway