Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
The mobo that got our interest are the ones with H77 or Z77 or H87 chipsets.
Is there any URL for me to get the information we need?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rachma
On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a server-focused distro. RHEL/CentOS would make a much better OS, and if you needed something newer than it offers, check the EPEL repo.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
Most consumer mainboard manufacturers don't list Linux support. Another reason to use server-grade hardware is that it is usually validated against RHEL 6 (and thus CentOS 6 will work). You can get good server-grade hardware for not too much more money.
The mobo that got our interest are the ones with H77 or Z77 or H87 chipsets.
Any particular reason?
You might want to look at Intel, if you really want this. Check their "Server and Workstation" section, they are usually quite Linux friendly and they make the chipset info readily available.
Is there any URL for me to get the information we need?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rachma
On 04/16/2014 05:40 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS.
I do not agree with this statement. Fedora is a good choice for development purposes, both on servers and on clients.
The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a server-focused distro.
Well, Fedora's short life cycle and update rate imposes more admin work on both clients and servers, but this doesn't mean the situation is not manageable.
I would not choose Fedora on install-and-forget client nor server installations - But if staff can manage the updates/upgrades, I do not see much reasons for not using Fedora.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
Most consumer mainboard manufacturers don't list Linux support.
Most mainstream motherboards work out of the box and do not require any additional support from board manufacturers. That said, all of the mobos you mention probably are mostly equal choices.
However, chances are, newer motherboards will require a more modern OS (Fedora, Ubuntu, openSUSE) and do not work smoothly with gradually aging/out-dated distros such as CentOS/RHEL/Debian/SLES.
Ralf
On 16 April 2014 05:45, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/16/2014 05:40 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS.
I do not agree with this statement. Fedora is a good choice for development purposes, both on servers and on clients.
The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a
server-focused distro.
Well, Fedora's short life cycle and update rate imposes more admin work on both clients and servers, but this doesn't mean the situation is not manageable.
I would not choose Fedora on install-and-forget client nor server installations - But if staff can manage the updates/upgrades, I do not see much reasons for not using Fedora.
For development, fine. For hosting some application? Probably not. With Fedora you are looking at updating at least once a year, which means planning around doing that as well as potentially dealing with porting your setup to a newer infrastructure every time you do. It can be done. There are even some advantages, but it requires you to know what you're signing up for.
On 04/16/2014 11:12 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 16 April 2014 05:45, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/16/2014 05:40 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS.
I do not agree with this statement. Fedora is a good choice for development purposes, both on servers and on clients.
The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a
server-focused distro.
Well, Fedora's short life cycle and update rate imposes more admin work on both clients and servers, but this doesn't mean the situation is not manageable.
I would not choose Fedora on install-and-forget client nor server installations - But if staff can manage the updates/upgrades, I do not see much reasons for not using Fedora.
For development, fine. For hosting some application? Probably not.
Like I said, if staff/admins can manage it, why not?
With Fedora you are looking at updating at least once a year, which means planning around doing that as well as potentially dealing with porting your setup to a newer infrastructure every time you do.
Correct.
It can be done.
Correct - How much effort this means, depends upon your setup. I've been running Fedora servers for several years, without many problems, with upgrading efforts varying in large degree.
Eg. the effort of upgrading from f16->f17 was such kind of unbearable, I migrated some machine from Fedora to CentOS. However, but f19->f20 was 3-4 hours per machine with actual labor time being ca. 1/2 hour (the rest went unattended). Meanwhile, I turned these CentOS machines back to Fedora, because the effects of age of CentOS gradually showed and were causing additional work.
And ... wrt. client vs. servers setup: From my experience, setting up Fedora on servers often is easier than on clients, with routine maintenance being the same as on Fedora. The only real difference is the 1/2-1 year upgrade cycle.
There are even some advantages, but it requires you to know what you're signing up for.
Correct. Both Fedora and CentOS have their pros and cons. One needs to find a balance/compromise, depending upon your demands, skills, staff, time, etc.
Ralf
Thanks a lot to everybody who responded my question. I got the impression that for production better use non-Fedora (Centos, RH) so as to minimize the frequent-updates work. For development stage it seems that using Fedora would not be a big issue. I will consult my programmer about this advice, since he usually works with Fedora.
Just interesting fact: my colleague has run an apps with MySQL DB, on Fedora 6 from 2008 in desktop-configured as server, found no issue until now and never upgrade the Fedora.
Regards, Rachma
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Corsepius Sent: 17 April 2014 00:25 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Need advice
On 04/16/2014 11:12 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 16 April 2014 05:45, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/16/2014 05:40 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS.
I do not agree with this statement. Fedora is a good choice for development purposes, both on servers and on clients.
The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a
server-focused distro.
Well, Fedora's short life cycle and update rate imposes more admin work on both clients and servers, but this doesn't mean the situation is not manageable.
I would not choose Fedora on install-and-forget client nor server installations - But if staff can manage the updates/upgrades, I do not see much reasons for not using Fedora.
For development, fine. For hosting some application? Probably not.
Like I said, if staff/admins can manage it, why not?
With Fedora you are looking at updating at least once a year, which means planning around doing that as well as potentially dealing with porting your setup to a newer infrastructure every time you do.
Correct.
It can be done.
Correct - How much effort this means, depends upon your setup. I've been running Fedora servers for several years, without many problems, with upgrading efforts varying in large degree.
Eg. the effort of upgrading from f16->f17 was such kind of unbearable, I migrated some machine from Fedora to CentOS. However, but f19->f20 was 3-4 hours per machine with actual labor time being ca. 1/2 hour (the rest went unattended). Meanwhile, I turned these CentOS machines back to Fedora, because the effects of age of CentOS gradually showed and were causing additional work.
And ... wrt. client vs. servers setup: From my experience, setting up Fedora on servers often is easier than on clients, with routine maintenance being the same as on Fedora. The only real difference is the 1/2-1 year upgrade cycle.
There are even some advantages, but it requires you to know what you're signing up for.
Correct. Both Fedora and CentOS have their pros and cons. One needs to find a balance/compromise, depending upon your demands, skills, staff, time, etc.
Ralf
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Thanks a lot to everybody who responded my question. I got the impression that for production better use non-Fedora (Centos, RH) so as to minimize the frequent-updates work. For development stage it seems that using Fedora would not be a big issue. I will consult my programmer about this advice, since he usually works with Fedora.
Just interesting fact: my colleague has run an apps with MySQL DB, on Fedora 6 from 2008 in desktop-configured as server, found no issue until now and never upgrade the Fedora.
Regards, Rachma
This conversation has piqued my curiosity. Fedora becomes end of life. I'm guessing that means the kernel and associated components go EOL. What would be the difference between an EOL well serviced and managed Fedora 19 and newly installed CentOS6.5 as far as internet safety and security goes?
I'm guessing that EAL Fedora apps like apache or nginx, php, perl, python, Ruby, c, mariadb, OpenSSL, firewall and the other security apps as well as Inkscape, Blender, LibreOffice Firefox, Thunderbird and others would keep on updating as they do in CentOS until the updates did not fit with installed kernel requirements which could conceivably be quite some time down the track. Pardon my terminology, I'm out of depth here.
I don't remember any conversations for years about attacks on Fedora system it'self, so what parts of Fedora are or could become dangerous after EOL down the track? What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years? Roger
On 17/04/14 01:41 AM, Roger wrote:
This conversation has piqued my curiosity. Fedora becomes end of life. I'm guessing that means the kernel and associated components go EOL. What would be the difference between an EOL well serviced and managed Fedora 19 and newly installed CentOS6.5 as far as internet safety and security goes?
As soon as Fedora goes EOL, no more updates are released (1 month after the second version passed has been released, so F18 went EOL 1 month after F20 was released).
CentOS gets it's updates from upstream (Red Hat), which is supported for at least ten years after initial release. So CentOS 6 servers will get updates until 2020, at least.
I'm guessing that EAL Fedora apps like apache or nginx, php, perl, python, Ruby, c, mariadb, OpenSSL, firewall and the other security apps as well as Inkscape, Blender, LibreOffice Firefox, Thunderbird and others would keep on updating as they do in CentOS until the updates did not fit with installed kernel requirements which could conceivably be quite some time down the track. Pardon my terminology, I'm out of depth here.
Once EOL, nothing gets updated on the OS, period.
I don't remember any conversations for years about attacks on Fedora system it'self, so what parts of Fedora are or could become dangerous after EOL down the track? What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years? Roger
Once a system stops being updated, it's only a matter of time before it becomes exploitable. An EOL OS should never be used on a system you care about.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Roger arelem@bigpond.com wrote:
What would be the difference between an EOL well serviced and managed Fedora 19 and newly installed CentOS6.5 as far as internet safety and security goes?
F19 is still current, so the comparison would be with F18. In a nutshell: F18 isn't getting the OpenSSL update to fix the Heartbleed bug. Does that convince you?
poc
On 04/17/2014 07:07 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Roger arelem@bigpond.com wrote:
What would be the difference between an EOL well serviced and managed Fedora 19 and newly installed CentOS6.5 as far as internet safety and security goes?
F19 is still current, so the comparison would be with F18. In a nutshell: F18 isn't getting the OpenSSL update to fix the Heartbleed bug. Does that convince you?
poc
Thankyou Patrick Roger
Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2014, Roger sent:
What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years?
You wouldn't be able to install new applications on it. e.g. If, years later, someone develops something that sounds interesting to you, it will depend on whatever was currently available, which you wouldn't have. You may be able to compile it from source, though that might be a pain, or perhaps not possible - because you'd need to compile all the system stuff, not just the application.
Around 02:53pm on Thursday, April 17, 2014 (UK time), Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2014, Roger sent:
What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years?
You wouldn't be able to install new applications on it. e.g. If, years later, someone develops something that sounds interesting to you, it will depend on whatever was currently available, which you wouldn't have. You may be able to compile it from source, though that might be a pain, or perhaps not possible - because you'd need to compile all the system stuff, not just the application.
I would think the lack of any security updates would be a more serious problem than this.
Steve
On 17/04/14 09:59 AM, Steve Searle wrote:
Around 02:53pm on Thursday, April 17, 2014 (UK time), Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2014, Roger sent:
What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years?
You wouldn't be able to install new applications on it. e.g. If, years later, someone develops something that sounds interesting to you, it will depend on whatever was currently available, which you wouldn't have. You may be able to compile it from source, though that might be a pain, or perhaps not possible - because you'd need to compile all the system stuff, not just the application.
I would think the lack of any security updates would be a more serious problem than this.
Steve
Also, a lot of Fedora packages make it into EPEL, which can be installed on CentOS/RHEL. Even still, I agree with you that security and bug fixes trump features in servers.
On 04/17/2014 06:29 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 17/04/14 09:59 AM, Steve Searle wrote:
Around 02:53pm on Thursday, April 17, 2014 (UK time), Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2014, Roger sent:
What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years?
I would think the lack of any security updates would be a more serious problem than this.
ACK. Not upgrading Fedora in time would be grossly negligent, IMHO.
Also, a lot of Fedora packages make it into EPEL, which can be installed on CentOS/RHEL.
If you have a closer look at EPEL, you'll notice that many packages are stuck without bug/security fixes , because the foundation underneath (RHEL/CentOS) is too outdated and out of control of EPEL package maintainers.
It's one reason for me to favor Fedora over CentOS+EPEL.
Ralf
Allegedly, on or about 17 April 2014, Steve Searle sent:
I would think the lack of any security updates would be a more serious problem than this.
Me too, but they've already been covered.
I have one machine that uses an old OS, because it does what I need. Since it's not on any network, and doesn't have to share data with anything (not even discs), those kind of security issues don't exist.
So, there are times when the usual rules don't apply. Even the heartbleed problem can be ignored by those who don't do any secure internetting.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Roger wrote:
What would one have to look out for if one does keep an EOL Fedora for a number of years? Roger
I *assume* (though do not know) that you wouldn't keep getting library updates, so that eventually updated apps wouldn't run even if you downloaded them by hand. Don't know, though.
I do know that about 15 years ago, I used to do system admin for a small government scientific network. I left the activity to work somewhere else, but they hired me as a private consultant to do remote security maintenance. In addition, I'd travel up to DC to do clean OS upgrades twice a year. I did that for awhile until the activity was partially defunded, and they couldn't renew my contract.
Then, for another few years, I did a rather haphazard security surveillance for them gratis, since I was friends with one of the scientists there. However, I didn't do upgrades. The bottom line was that there were four servers in the DMZ, and all did fine for five years without any human hands actually touching them. Script kiddies banged the bejesus out of my webserver, ssh server, and ftp server, but I never saw an actual intrusion with the tools I had. Doesn't mean there wasn't one, of course :-), but I looked pretty hard and I had the advantage of surveilling a network that had few users, and whose users did very limited things. Back then, I was a fan of Mandrake/Mandriva (this was before Mageia). I was pretty surprised by the robustness of the OS even without upgrade -- four machines ran five years without any hands-on maintenance, and even survived a couple of power outages and a hurricane or two.
But, all in all, it gave me the willies. I was a lot more paranoid than the scientists on the system. If there was going to be an intrusion, it would have more likely been because of social engineering with them rather than a memory overflow bug in the webserver...
billo
On 04/17/2014 01:46 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
I *assume* (though do not know) that you wouldn't keep getting library updates, so that eventually updated apps wouldn't run even if you downloaded them by hand. Don't know, though.
As others have written, once a Fedora release reaches EOL, there are no updates of any kind, including for security.
On 2014-04-16 22:19, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Thanks a lot to everybody who responded my question. I got the impression that for production better use non-Fedora (Centos, RH) so as to minimize the frequent-updates work. For development stage it seems that using Fedora would not be a big issue. I will consult my programmer about this advice, since he usually works with Fedora.
Just interesting fact: my colleague has run an apps with MySQL DB, on Fedora 6 from 2008 in desktop-configured as server, found no issue until now and never upgrade the Fedora.
Regards, Rachma
As you have read, it would be better to use CentOS over Fedora.
I work with someone that is more or less in your shoes. He has various versions of Fedora running. All behind a firewall with no outside access. No updates is one of the reasons. Less to screw up on. Another reason is consistency over the years. F20 is a major change from F14.
As time is precious, I would save headaches and look at Centos over Fedora of a commercial or deployed product. Presently in F20, I know of at least one application that has been broken from install and still not working. In F19, I have a couple of applications that are broken as well. Both are supported but there is no insurance that broken applications will be fixed.
My father ran a few servers and he swore by Centos over Fedora for running servers.
Security is always an issue. I wouldn't run anything with critical data on a system that isn't getting updates. The risks are just too high.
Robin
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
For more, see the Fedora Server Working Group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server
On 04/18/2014 02:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
May I repeat one of my Fedora mantras, I have been reiterating since Fedora day #1: Fedora's life-cycle is too short!
IMO, extending it would enhance Fedora's usability and suitability in many use-cases and would significantly increase attractivity to users.
Ralf
On 04/18/2014 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius issued this missive:
On 04/18/2014 02:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
May I repeat one of my Fedora mantras, I have been reiterating since Fedora day #1: Fedora's life-cycle is too short!
And what we've been saying for years: Fedora is a test bed for newer technologies. It has never been touted as a general use system. It is because of these new technologies that it has a short life span.
IMO, extending it would enhance Fedora's usability and suitability in many use-cases and would significantly increase attractivity to users.
I tend to agree that the 6 month cycle is a pain in the arse, but if you want stability you use RHEL or CentOS or another distro. Fedora is, by definition, bleeding edge.
The concept is that once we're all done beating the crap out of Fedora AND it becomes stable AND there are enough feature improvements accumulated, it gets snapshotted, tuned, tweaked and becomes the next major RHEL version (and, by diffusion, the next major CentOS version).
If you use Fedora, get used to the fact that you have joined the rest of us experimental lab rats testing this technology. You will get bloodied, angered, frustrated, and confused using Fedora. That's the nature of the beast. We are, essentially, beta testers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - I don't suffer from insanity...I enjoy every minute of it! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 04/18/2014 06:33 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius issued this missive:
On 04/18/2014 02:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
May I repeat one of my Fedora mantras, I have been reiterating since Fedora day #1: Fedora's life-cycle is too short!
And what we've been saying for years: Fedora is a test bed for newer technologies. It has never been touted as a general use system. It is because of these new technologies that it has a short life span.
In first place, Fedora is distro, not a Red Hat colony nor the sandbox to let Red Hat's uncooked ideas mature.
IMO, extending it would enhance Fedora's usability and suitability in many use-cases and would significantly increase attractivity to users.
I tend to agree that the 6 month cycle is a pain in the arse, but if you want stability you use RHEL or CentOS or another distro.
Another mantra, I have been reiterating for 10 years: CentOS or RHEL are no substitutes for Fedora. They are addressing an entirely different audience.
People who are telling CentOS/RHEL were, are cheating.
Fedora is, by definition, bleeding edge.
No, Fedora is not supposed to the bleeding edge. It's supposed to be the cutting edge, with some occasional warts sometimes.
If you use Fedora, get used to the fact that you have joined the rest of us experimental lab rats testing this technology. You will get bloodied, angered, frustrated, and confused using Fedora. That's the nature of the beast. We are, essentially, beta testers.
Yes, you are right, we are ... and yes, I am angry about some people abusing Fedora this way.
Ralf
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:23:18 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In first place, Fedora is distro, not a Red Hat colony nor the sandbox to let Red Hat's uncooked ideas mature.
In your dreams, perhaps, but in the real world, that's exactly what it is. In fact, I run Fedora primarily to discover what new uncooked ideas are going to cause problems for the software we write that eventually needs to run on RHEL.
It has been quite good at killing off the canaries early enough to solve the problems before they show up in RHEL and start killing customers instead :-).
On 04/18/2014 08:10 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:23:18 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In first place, Fedora is distro, not a Red Hat colony nor the sandbox to let Red Hat's uncooked ideas mature.
In your dreams, perhaps, but in the real world, that's exactly what it is. In fact, I run Fedora primarily to discover what new uncooked ideas are going to cause problems for the software we write that eventually needs to run on RHEL.
Exactly.
It has been quite good at killing off the canaries early enough to solve the problems before they show up in RHEL and start killing customers instead :-).
Yeah! It has started to kill Fedora, instead :-)
IMO, this is *the cause*, why Fedora has lost against its competitors.
Ralf
On Apr 21, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
IMO, this is *the cause*, why Fedora has lost against its competitors.
I don't agree. Fedora doesn't have competitors. It fills a niche which I am not sure that any other distribution truly meets. Sure, some have bleeding edge forks, but then they also have the necessity of maintaining their stable forks. Fedora doesn't have a stable fork.
If Fedora is losing against anything, it's losing against itself. And that may well be happening. But it needn't worry about competitors.
The problem here is not that Fedora is not of value. It's of plenty of value. The problem is that this value is not understood by people who should know better. Including, in some cases, its own developers.
--Russell
Ralf
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 04/22/2014 07:00 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 21, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
IMO, this is *the cause*, why Fedora has lost against its competitors.
I don't agree. Fedora doesn't have competitors.
It's competitors are end-user distros: Debian, openSUSE, Mageia, Arch, Mint, Gentoo, Ubuntu etc..
If Fedora is losing against anything, it's losing against itself.
Well, Fedora has lost end-users against the distros mentioned above and is loosing contributing users (contributors) against itself.
And that may well be happening. But it needn't worry about competitors.
ACK - It should need to worry about itself.
The problem here is not that Fedora is not of value. It's of plenty of value. The problem is that this value is not understood by people who should know better. Including, in some cases, its own developers.
Right - IMO, Fedora is in crisis, one primarily made @RH.
Ralf
On Apr 21, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/22/2014 07:00 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 21, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
IMO, this is *the cause*, why Fedora has lost against its competitors.
I don't agree. Fedora doesn't have competitors.
It's competitors are end-user distros: Debian, openSUSE, Mageia, Arch, Mint, Gentoo, Ubuntu etc..
Again, I don't agree.
If Fedora is losing against anything, it's losing against itself.
Well, Fedora has lost end-users against the distros mentioned above and is loosing contributing users (contributors) against itself.
End-users that Fedora loses against the distros mentioned, I think, is entirely acceptable. Sometimes Fedora just doesn't fit the bill. I don't think this should be counted as "losing" unless Fedora has failed in its core mission. Maybe it has, even - but you're not going to discover that by counting people who stopped using Fedora. You'll discover that by finding out *why* people stopped using Fedora.
You appear to be steeped in the fallacy that when someone stops using Fedora, it means Fedora has lost. It *can* mean Fedora has lost, but there has to be something more than just stopping using it.
For example, I stopped using Fedora because it was a moving target and broke far too much when doing upgrades. This could be a "loss". If I had stopped using Fedora because I wanted something much more stable to run a production server on... that's not a loss. It's actually a win, because I would have found something more useful to me, and Fedora would have lost a user who was not using Fedora in the way it was designed/intended to be used.
Put more succinctly, there are some users that Fedora should lose because they are only using Fedora based on a lack of understanding of what Fedora is trying to accomplish. And conversely, there are some people who are marketing Fedora based on that same misunderstanding, and causing damage to the "brand".
Right - IMO, Fedora is in crisis, one primarily made @RH.
Agreed, but I don't think we would agree on exactly what the crisis is.
--Russell
On 04/22/2014 02:31 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 21, 2014, at 10:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 04/22/2014 07:00 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 21, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
IMO, this is *the cause*, why Fedora has lost against its competitors.
I don't agree. Fedora doesn't have competitors.
It's competitors are end-user distros: Debian, openSUSE, Mageia, Arch, Mint, Gentoo, Ubuntu etc..
Again, I don't agree.
If Fedora is losing against anything, it's losing against itself.
Well, Fedora has lost end-users against the distros mentioned above and is loosing contributing users (contributors) against itself.
End-users that Fedora loses against the distros mentioned, I think, is entirely acceptable. Sometimes Fedora just doesn't fit the bill. I don't think this should be counted as "losing" unless Fedora has failed in its core mission. Maybe it has, even - but you're not going to discover that by counting people who stopped using Fedora. You'll discover that by finding out *why* people stopped using Fedora.
You appear to be steeped in the fallacy that when someone stops using Fedora, it means Fedora has lost. It *can* mean Fedora has lost, but there has to be something more than just stopping using it.
For example, I stopped using Fedora because it was a moving target and broke far too much when doing upgrades. This could be a "loss". If I had stopped using Fedora because I wanted something much more stable to run a production server on... that's not a loss. It's actually a win, because I would have found something more useful to me, and Fedora would have lost a user who was not using Fedora in the way it was designed/intended to be used.
Put more succinctly, there are some users that Fedora should lose because they are only using Fedora based on a lack of understanding of what Fedora is trying to accomplish. And conversely, there are some people who are marketing Fedora based on that same misunderstanding, and causing damage to the "brand".
Right - IMO, Fedora is in crisis, one primarily made @RH.
Agreed, but I don't think we would agree on exactly what the crisis is.
--Russell
As far as I am concerned, there is a distro for everyone, and if someone decides to "jump ship" from Fedora to another distro, then that's fine. As stated earlier by another person, it's better that a person move to a distro that they will use in the fashion it was meant to be used in, than they remain in Fedora's "camp" missing the point. As for the crisis? I don't think there is that much of one...Fedora will continue to be Red Hat's "Incubator" for whatever programs or packages it may want to integrate into future versions of R.H.E.L. and the users who install it and use it will benefit from this. Those who don't want to be a part of that, or who choose to go a different route are free to do so at their leisure...IMHO
EGO II
Put more succinctly, there are some users that Fedora should lose because they are only using Fedora based on a lack of understanding of what Fedora is trying to accomplish. And conversely, there are some people who are marketing Fedora based on that same misunderstanding, and causing damage to the "brand".
Right - IMO, Fedora is in crisis, one primarily made @RH.
Agreed, but I don't think we would agree on exactly what the crisis is.
--Russell
Well,... I think Fedora is a wonderful distro, both for servers & desktops, but not for anyone. I feel more comfortable with Fedora than with Centos and I run Fedora servers for many years with great success. I also use it as desktop at home and at work. And yes, it breaks sometimes after some nasty updates and I may revert them, but I know how to fix needed things and all is working well. I am not the only one to think Fedora is a stable distro, if you know what you're doing.
C. Sava
On 04/22/2014 05:19 AM, Cristian Sava wrote:
Put more succinctly, there are some users that Fedora should lose because they are only using Fedora based on a lack of understanding of what Fedora is trying to accomplish. And conversely, there are some people who are marketing Fedora based on that same misunderstanding, and causing damage to the "brand".
Right - IMO, Fedora is in crisis, one primarily made @RH.
Agreed, but I don't think we would agree on exactly what the crisis is.
--Russell
Well,... I think Fedora is a wonderful distro, both for servers & desktops, but not for anyone. I feel more comfortable with Fedora than with Centos and I run Fedora servers for many years with great success. I also use it as desktop at home and at work. And yes, it breaks sometimes after some nasty updates and I may revert them, but I know how to fix needed things and all is working well. I am not the only one to think Fedora is a stable distro, if you know what you're doing.
C. Sava
I agree with you on that! I use Fedora as a desktop and I'm JUST starting to learn it's "Server Capabilities" as soon as I get a handle on that I will start to use it and deploy it on my home network which isn't much. LoL! I use CEntOS as well and frankly I don't notice much difference from Fedora, since they both use the YUM and I can get most things done from the command line. I at first thought that the announcement from CEntOS that they were becoming "part" of Red Hat would be a bad thing, that they might possibly go away, but I think its better this way, there was so much confusion for me at first when I saw CEntOS.....Scientific....and even Fedora, that was one of the reasons I chose Fedora as my main OS at home, because it wasn't a "cookie-cutter' copy of something else....it looked original enough to differentiate itself from everything else...I guess different strokes for different folks is all.
EGO II
Cristian Sava wrote:
I feel more comfortable with Fedora than with Centos and I run Fedora servers for many years with great success.
Why? To me it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server, since the chances of problems arising would be higher, and I don't see any compensating advantages. I run Fedora on laptops because there is a wider range of apps available, but they are not apps that I would want to run on a server. I don't think "more comfortable" is a rational explanation for a preference.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Cristian Sava wrote:
I feel more comfortable with Fedora than with Centos and I run Fedora servers for many years with great success.
Why? To me it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server, since the chances of problems arising would be higher, and I don't see any compensating advantages. I run Fedora on laptops because there is a wider range of apps available, but they are not apps that I would want to run on a server. I don't think "more comfortable" is a rational explanation for a preference.
I think being comfy with a distro is a big deal. I can remember umpteen years ago I was trying to get Red Hat (this was before Fedora) to run on my laptop. It wouldn't, because there wasn't hardware support -- this was back when part of installing linux was searching for drivers and doing manual configuration on everything. I stumbled across Mandrake Linux. It had the driver I needed, and all the "drak-whatever" config tools made installing and configuring it a breeze. So I started using Mandrake on my laptop.
Then I got a couple of gigs doing sysadmin for some folk who agreed to use linux servers. Guess what -- I installed Mandrake, and stuck with it through the Mandriva years.
During that time, one of the users on one of the networks installed a piece of hardware that required Fedora/Red Hat for some of its controllers (else the manufacturer would not provide support). So, I started administering the Fedora maching. I discovered that Fedora had diverged significantly from Mandriva over the years. I didn't like it -- things weren't in the right place, config files were a little different, etc. I could do it, but instead of being a breeze, everything was a little bit of a hassle. Instead of something taking me 5 minutes, it took me 15 minutes. And, you know -- 10 minutes here and 10 minutes there, and suddenly you've wasted some hours you didn't need to waste.
Then Mandriva collapsed. I had to get used to Fedora. When Mageia came out, I was tickled pink and immediately installed it -- only to find that now I was in the exact opposite position. I'm now very comfy with Fedora, and all the Mageia tools an locations are a pain in the ass to get used to. So, no Mageia for me -- not because it's a bad distro, but because I just don't want to be bothered with changing stuff just to be changing stuff. I'll do it if there's a reason, but not just for the hell of it.
billo
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 11:59 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
I think being comfy with a distro is a big deal....
Then Mandriva collapsed. I had to get used to Fedora. When Mageia came out, I was tickled pink and immediately installed it -- only to find that now I was in the exact opposite position. I'm now very comfy with Fedora, and all the Mageia tools an locations are a pain in the ass to get used to. So, no Mageia for me -- not because it's a bad distro, but because I just don't want to be bothered with changing stuff just to be changing stuff.
And /that/ is one of the things against Fedora - it keeps on changing, and quickly, too. Sure, you've got a fighting chance of being able to work out the differences between Fedora version x and x+1, but sometimes they are extreme. Enough that it's like changing distros, sometimes even worse.
I find it a nuisance dealing with the changes between releases, when using it as a desktop computer. But I find it a complete pain dealing with services between releases, enough that I have very old releases still in use, and toy with putting them onto CentOS so I can just leave it running, and not have to rejig it once or twice a year.
While some might think once or twice a year isn't so bad, I do. Along with everything else I have to *manage*, I don't want yet another thing. And worse is having to help other people cope with these changes.
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 12:43 +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Cristian Sava wrote:
I feel more comfortable with Fedora than with Centos and I run Fedora servers for many years with great success.
Why? To me it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server, since the chances of problems arising would be higher, and I don't see any compensating advantages. I run Fedora on laptops because there is a wider range of apps available, but they are not apps that I would want to run on a server. I don't think "more comfortable" is a rational explanation for a preference.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Why "it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server"? As an example, you have qemu-kvm-1.6.2-1.fc20.x86_64 instead of qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6_5.8.x86_64.rpm, big difference if you install a box to host some virtual machines (depending of what you're doing).
C. Sava
Cristian Sava wrote:
To me it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server, since the chances of problems arising would be higher, and I don't see any compensating advantages. I run Fedora on laptops because there is a wider range of apps available, but they are not apps that I would want to run on a server.
Why "it would be irrational to run Fedora rather than CentOS on a server"?
I gave my reasons, above.
As an example, you have qemu-kvm-1.6.2-1.fc20.x86_64 instead of qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6_5.8.x86_64.rpm, big difference if you install a box to host some virtual machines (depending of what you're doing).
If in fact there are apps you need to run on a server that are available on Fedora but not on CentOS then obviously you should run Fedora. I don't run virtual machines on my servers, so the issue you raise does not arise for me.
I'm not quite clear why you would want to run virtual machines on a server? To me, the basic requirement for a server is that it should provide the services that are required by laptops, phones and other machines.
One reason for running CentOS on servers in my case is that the CentOS team seem to put reliability and stability at the top of their priorities, while when problems arise under Fedora one always hears the response that Fedora is a "bleeding edge" project.
HI
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I'm not quite clear why you would want to run virtual machines on a server? To me, the basic requirement for a server is that it should provide the services that are required by laptops, phones and other machines.
VM's on a server have increasingly become the norm including in Fedora infrastructure. It makes deploying instances much more manageable in many use cases.
One reason for running CentOS on servers in my case is that the CentOS team seem to put reliability and stability at the top of their priorities, while when problems arise under Fedora one always hears the response that Fedora is a "bleeding edge" project.
CentOS is rebuilding RHEL. The priorities you attribute to them are RHEL attributes. Neverthless it helps to keep in mind that different people have needs other than yours and I wouldn't call them irrational without understanding why they do what they do.
Rahul
Rick Stevens wrote:
Fedora is, by definition, bleeding edge.
Ralf Corsepius:
No, Fedora is not supposed to the bleeding edge. It's supposed to be the cutting edge, with some occasional warts sometimes.
I would say, by way of what it actually is, it is bleeding edge. But you're arguing over pedantics.
The Fedora website may, now, say what /they/ want Fedora to be. People who've been using it since it used to be called Red Hat Linux, know what it is. I'm fairly sure I've seen Red Hat describe it similarly, way back in the beginning, or at least I know I've seen the computer print media say so (i.e. those who review different computer systems).
It's clear that we are a test bed, whether that be Red Hat pushing things to be tested into it, themselves, or they're just looking at what Fedora users put into it. You can see that from what goes into Fedora ends up on Red Hat's Linux.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it gets tiring to see some people running around with their hands over their ears, "la la laaing," so they don't hear it.
And it can't possibly be considered as a general purpose distro, it's just too unattractive to the casual user. The release turnover time is way too fast, and it doesn't support encumbered products (MP3, graphics card drivers, etc.) without technical tinkering to add it in.
On 2014-04-19 06:25, Tim wrote:
Rick Stevens wrote:
Fedora is, by definition, bleeding edge.
Ralf Corsepius:
No, Fedora is not supposed to the bleeding edge. It's supposed to be the cutting edge, with some occasional warts sometimes.
I would say, by way of what it actually is, it is bleeding edge. But you're arguing over pedantics.
The Fedora website may, now, say what /they/ want Fedora to be. People who've been using it since it used to be called Red Hat Linux, know what it is. I'm fairly sure I've seen Red Hat describe it similarly, way back in the beginning, or at least I know I've seen the computer print media say so (i.e. those who review different computer systems).
It's clear that we are a test bed, whether that be Red Hat pushing things to be tested into it, themselves, or they're just looking at what Fedora users put into it. You can see that from what goes into Fedora ends up on Red Hat's Linux.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it gets tiring to see some people running around with their hands over their ears, "la la laaing," so they don't hear it.
And it can't possibly be considered as a general purpose distro, it's just too unattractive to the casual user. The release turnover time is way too fast, and it doesn't support encumbered products (MP3, graphics card drivers, etc.) without technical tinkering to add it in.
Fedora will work for servers but the upgrade cycle does cause problems. I have seen enough of them in my job.
It is cutting edge and there are issues with each upgrade that cause problems. Some programs that don't work at the issue and even months later are still not working due to library changes causing problems for the developers and maintainers.
For a production server, you don't need this issue to maintain security. Better to go with something that has a longer support.
Where I work, people use a combination of Centos, Fedora and Ubuntu. With the Fedora users, one person is still using F14 due to the changes over time. It is on a private network so most of the security issues are not a factor but he has tried F20 with problems.
It comes down to how many times you have to learn new procedures and how much time you can devote to the outside issues. Learning firewalld over iptables is just one example that I struggled with. At work many people have had issues with the way cups is now installed but once the information was found, it was an easy path for the rest.
I would use Fedora for a home server in most cases. My father wouldn't. He used Centos. So it is up to a persons own choices. For services, I use Raspian on my Raspberry Pi but am looking at Pidora due to familiarity of configuration. This is a time issue.
Robin
On Apr 19, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Robin Laing MeSat@TelusPlanet.net wrote:
Fedora will work for servers but the upgrade cycle does cause problems. I have seen enough of them in my job.
Well, yes. Any linux distribution will work for servers as long as it will run the binaries required. Even *shudder* Gentoo, whose upgrade cycle would, without some kind of precompiled packages, make it a really, really poor choice, would make a decent server OS once it's configured.
(I use the Linux Rescue CD, though, which is based on Gentoo, and it's saved my posterior more than once, so even it has its place.)
I don't think the question is whether Fedora would make a decent server operating system. Of course it would. The question is maintenance, and any system administrator who has been doing this for any amount of time knows that that's far more important than actual functionality in the long term, as long as the functionality is a bare minimum (programs work and provide the needed services).
It is cutting edge and there are issues with each upgrade that cause problems. Some programs that don't work at the issue and even months later are still not working due to library changes causing problems for the developers and maintainers.
And for a production server, this is a no-go. Full stop. I have to measure upgrades at work in terms of minutes, and services that were not working for months due to a botched upgrade would probably get me fired. They don't happen until we're reasonably confident they will go off without a hitch. I would not have that confidence with Fedora.
I would use Fedora for a home server in most cases. My father wouldn't. He used Centos. So it is up to a persons own choices. For services, I use Raspian on my Raspberry Pi but am looking at Pidora due to familiarity of configuration. This is a time issue.
As are many things...
Time is the only truly non-renewable resource.
--Russell
On 04/18/2014 11:33 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 04/18/2014 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius issued this missive:
On 04/18/2014 02:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
May I repeat one of my Fedora mantras, I have been reiterating since Fedora day #1: Fedora's life-cycle is too short!
And what we've been saying for years: Fedora is a test bed for newer technologies. It has never been touted as a general use system.
Really? That's weird, because I just went to https://fedoraproject.org/ and the very first page there says "Fedora is a fast, stable, and powerful operating system for everyday use built by a worldwide community of friends. It's completely free to use, study, and share."
You and I must have a very different interpretation of "for everyday use."
It is because of these new technologies that it has a short life span.
Short life span != not good for daily use. Or general purpose use. Or even server use in some circumstances.
IMO, extending it would enhance Fedora's usability and suitability in many use-cases and would significantly increase attractivity to users.
I tend to agree that the 6 month cycle is a pain in the arse, but if you want stability you use RHEL or CentOS or another distro. Fedora is, by definition, bleeding edge.
The concept is that once we're all done beating the crap out of Fedora AND it becomes stable AND there are enough feature improvements accumulated, it gets snapshotted, tuned, tweaked and becomes the next major RHEL version (and, by diffusion, the next major CentOS version).
If you use Fedora, get used to the fact that you have joined the rest of us experimental lab rats testing this technology. You will get bloodied, angered, frustrated, and confused using Fedora. That's the nature of the beast. We are, essentially, beta testers.
That is neither the charter of the project, nor my personal experience. I use Fedora for my daily driver at home, I use it for dev work at work, my 7 & 11 year old daughters use it for daily driving on their laptops (https://fedoraproject.org/en/using/life/thomascameron.html), and with *very* limited exceptions, it Just Works(TM). With a modicum of planning, upgrading from one distro to the next is super easy, so the "it only lasts 6 months" thing is kind of a non-issue.
Quit referring to Fedora as a beta. It's factually incorrect and it serves neither the Fedora community nor the greater Open Source and Linux communities. That FUD makes people avoid even trying Fedora and that's BS. Quit it.
Thomas
On Apr 18, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron@camerontech.com wrote:
That is neither the charter of the project, nor my personal experience. I use Fedora for my daily driver at home, I use it for dev work at work, my 7 & 11 year old daughters use it for daily driving on their laptops (https://fedoraproject.org/en/using/life/thomascameron.html), and with *very* limited exceptions, it Just Works(TM). With a modicum of planning, upgrading from one distro to the next is super easy, so the "it only lasts 6 months" thing is kind of a non-issue.
Quit referring to Fedora as a beta. It's factually incorrect and it serves neither the Fedora community nor the greater Open Source and Linux communities. That FUD makes people avoid even trying Fedora and that's BS. Quit it.
I stopped using Fedora when I tried to upgrade from FC14 to FC15, and it broke logins. I mean broke them so bad that I had to go back to single user and try to figure out what happened. Every time I've done an upgrade, there was a nasty surprise.
I'm a system administrator by trade, and I would never, ever run Fedora on a production system if I could help it. In fact, at my job I found a Fedora system, and worked actively to get it over to something stable, like OpenSuSE. It has its problems, but when you upgrade it, there's a minimum of fuss and the upgrade path is tested.
That wouldn't be so bad except Fedora pretty much forces the upgrade by EOLing things after a year or so.
I would never recommend using Fedora on a production server if either stability or an easy upgrade path is a consideration. I just wouldn't. It's more trouble than it's worth, and I've got more important things to do than try to recover from a botched upgrade on a system that people are expecting to be up in fifteen minutes.
If I had time to spare, I would absolutely use it as a testbed system to see what's coming in RHEL, like another poster said, or maybe a desktop system as long as I had everything religiously backed up somewhere else so when.. not if, WHEN... it implodes, at least I haven't lost anything important.
But as long as you know what you're getting into, do what you want. That's what open source is all about. The trick is knowing what you're getting into. And many people see "it's a general use OS", and think "Oh hey, I can use this for a server, or a desktop, or..." and get into a lot of trouble.
This is not FUD... it's just how it is.
--Russell
Thomas
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 4/18/2014 11:54 PM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Thomas Cameron <thomas.cameron@camerontech.com mailto:thomas.cameron@camerontech.com> wrote:
That is neither the charter of the project, nor my personal experience. I use Fedora for my daily driver at home, I use it for dev work at work, my 7 & 11 year old daughters use it for daily driving on their laptops (https://fedoraproject.org/en/using/life/thomascameron.html), and with *very* limited exceptions, it Just Works(TM). With a modicum of planning, upgrading from one distro to the next is super easy, so the "it only lasts 6 months" thing is kind of a non-issue.
Quit referring to Fedora as a beta. It's factually incorrect and it serves neither the Fedora community nor the greater Open Source and Linux communities. That FUD makes people avoid even trying Fedora and that's BS. Quit it.
I stopped using Fedora when I tried to upgrade from FC14 to FC15, and it broke logins. I mean broke them so bad that I had to go back to single user and try to figure out what happened. Every time I've done an upgrade, there was a nasty surprise.
I'm a system administrator by trade, and I would never, ever run Fedora on a production system if I could help it. In fact, at my job I found a Fedora system, and worked actively to get it over to something stable, like OpenSuSE. It has its problems, but when you upgrade it, there's a minimum of fuss and the upgrade path is tested.
That wouldn't be so bad except Fedora pretty much forces the upgrade by EOLing things after a year or so.
I would never recommend using Fedora on a production server if either stability or an easy upgrade path is a consideration. I just wouldn't. It's more trouble than it's worth, and I've got more important things to do than try to recover from a botched upgrade on a system that people are expecting to be up in fifteen minutes.
If I had time to spare, I would absolutely use it as a testbed system to see what's coming in RHEL, like another poster said, or maybe a desktop system as long as I had everything religiously backed up somewhere else so when.. not if, WHEN... it implodes, at least I haven't lost anything important.
But as long as you know what you're getting into, do what you want. That's what open source is all about. The trick is knowing what you're getting into. And many people see "it's a general use OS", and think "Oh hey, I can use this for a server, or a desktop, or..." and get into a lot of trouble.
This is not FUD... it's just how it is.
And yet you are still 'here'?
I've linked 1 file to this email: * 6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c.png (239 KB) hosted on Box: https://www.box.com/shared/2rb4lpl54xofhj6icfv5
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:15 PM, David dgboles@gmail.com wrote:
And yet you are still 'here'?
Not that it's any of your business, but the story behind that: I subscribed using my gmail a long time ago, and never forwarded my gmail, and filtered it to a special folder that I never saw. A few weeks ago I finally set gmail to forward to my "real" mail... and suddenly I started seeing traffic from all of the lists I forgot I was on. Including this one. Having decided there's no harm in keeping up with things, even on an OS I don't use often, I didn't immediately unsubscribe. Time will tell whether I change my mind on that.
Maybe I should try installing the latest Fedora on a machine I don't care about to see if the frustration factor has gone down. From the messages I'm seeing here, I doubt it very much.
To be fair, Fedora is hardly the only OS I'm frustrated with. I hate systemd with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, every distro and its long lost brother is switching to it, and I see it as a corruption beyond measure, but oh well, it's a living. Fedora just counts the frustration as a point of pride.
--Russell
On 4/19/2014 12:30 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:15 PM, David dgboles@gmail.com wrote:
And yet you are still 'here'?
Not that it's any of your business, but the story behind that: I subscribed using my gmail a long time ago, and never forwarded my gmail, and filtered it to a special folder that I never saw. A few weeks ago I finally set gmail to forward to my "real" mail... and suddenly I started seeing traffic from all of the lists I forgot I was on. Including this one. Having decided there's no harm in keeping up with things, even on an OS I don't use often, I didn't immediately unsubscribe. Time will tell whether I change my mind on that.
Maybe I should try installing the latest Fedora on a machine I don't care about to see if the frustration factor has gone down. From the messages I'm seeing here, I doubt it very much.
To be fair, Fedora is hardly the only OS I'm frustrated with. I hate systemd with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, every distro and its long lost brother is switching to it, and I see it as a corruption beyond measure, but oh well, it's a living. Fedora just counts the frustration as a point of pride.
--Russell
My question is/was "And yet you are still 'here'?" Bitching about Fedora?
If you do not 'like Fedora' I would suggest that you find some other distro of Linux that you do. And leave this list. And? Join the list(s) of your latest Linux darling and sing your love there.
It seems a waste of time to be spending your time dissing on Fedora. Unless you fit the cartoon?
BTW? Other than a few 'different things' you will find that most Linux distros are really similar and that they use the same utilities.
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:40 PM, David dgboles@gmail.com wrote:
If you do not 'like Fedora' I would suggest that you find some other distro of Linux that you do. And leave this list. And? Join the list(s) of your latest Linux darling and sing your love there.
Thank you for your suggestion.
It seems a waste of time to be spending your time dissing on Fedora. Unless you fit the cartoon?
I'm thinking that there is, indeed, one of us that fits the cartoon. This conversation is over.
Have a nice evening.
--Russell
On 4/19/2014 12:43 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:40 PM, David <dgboles@gmail.com mailto:dgboles@gmail.com> wrote:
If you do not 'like Fedora' I would suggest that you find some other distro of Linux that you do. And leave this list. And? Join the list(s) of your latest Linux darling and sing your love there.
Thank you for your suggestion.
It seems a waste of time to be spending your time dissing on Fedora. Unless you fit the cartoon?
I'm thinking that there is, indeed, one of us that fits the cartoon. This conversation is over.
Have a nice evening.
--Russell
Btw. Bitching about an update from fedora 14 to 15? When Fedora 20 is current? Was a dead give away to the cartoon I linked.
Thanks Russell. You have a good evening too. See you around.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:40:40AM -0400, David wrote:
My question is/was "And yet you are still 'here'?" Bitching about Fedora?
If you do not 'like Fedora' I would suggest that you find some other distro of Linux that you do. And leave this list. And? Join the list(s) of your latest Linux darling and sing your love there.
Please, people, remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRvc2UMeMI
I'm not currently running Fedora, either--it's just not in the mix for the five frankenstations and the server that I use for home and business right now. But I've been in the field since I got my degree in '76--that's almost 40 years now, if you're counting--in Unix since 1980, and Linux since it was born. If there's one thing I've most certainly learned is that no matter what it is, it's worth keeping an eye on it. I keep track of software and systems I may never use--because, as a consultant, I never know when it'll show up.
So I read this list, yes, and sometimes I might even be able to help someone.
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat dihnat@dminet.com
On Apr 19, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Dave Ihnat dihnat@dminet.com wrote:
I'm not currently running Fedora, either--it's just not in the mix for the five frankenstations and the server that I use for home and business right now. But I've been in the field since I got my degree in '76--that's almost 40 years now, if you're counting--in Unix since 1980, and Linux since it was born. If there's one thing I've most certainly learned is that no matter what it is, it's worth keeping an eye on it. I keep track of software and systems I may never use--because, as a consultant, I never know when it'll show up.
I've been a sysadmin for nearly 20 years now. Right now I work as a sysadmin for one of the largest tech companies in the world. It's a household name, you would recognize it, in fact, you are very likely using one of its products right now.
I don't say this to brag, but as the reason why I am completely comfortable with my qualifications.
An interesting thing I've noted is that when I first started with Linux, I loved messing with things. I was messing with it back when it was 0.99, and I remember when it got POSIX compliant. I've played with every single distro, and I used to absolutely love Fedora - exactly BECAUSE it was something that was fun to mess around with. I'd upgrade religiously, and swim out from problems, and it was fun.
But as I matured in the profession, I just stopped enjoying that part of the experience. I don't know what it was. Maybe I became far more pragmatic and less religious about the Linux experience. Maybe I spent so much time playing with Linux at my job Maybe a lot of things. But at some point, that just stopped being fun, and I moved on. I kind of miss that in a way, but it is what it is.
Fedora has its place. For young people who want to play with Linux, or have a lot of time on their hands to deal with the "bleeding edge", it's perfect. I don't know of any other distributions out there that fills the niche that Fedora does (Maybe Ubuntu's non-LTS versions fit the bill). And I don't begrudge that at all. But I stand by my opinion - do not use it for server use if you're not willing to deal with the resulting problems and, yes, data losses. At the least, make sure you have very good backups.
I think I'll stick around on this list for a while (subject to change without notice). If only because occasionally questions come up like this, and people with the experience to answer correctly need to speak up. :)
Please. use Fedora. I'm not saying don't use it. I'm just saying , do it with your eyes wide open. Know why it's there, what it's used for, what the caveats are, and then enjoy if it's still right for you.
--Russell
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Dave Ihnat dihnat@dminet.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:40:40AM -0400, David wrote:
My question is/was "And yet you are still 'here'?" Bitching about Fedora?
If you do not 'like Fedora' I would suggest that you find some other distro of Linux that you do. And leave this list. And? Join the list(s) of your latest Linux darling and sing your love there.
Please, people, remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRvc2UMeMI
I'm not currently running Fedora, either--it's just not in the mix for the five frankenstations and the server that I use for home and business right now. But I've been in the field since I got my degree in '76--that's almost 40 years now, if you're counting--in Unix since 1980, and Linux since it was born. If there's one thing I've most certainly learned is that no matter what it is, it's worth keeping an eye on it. I keep track of software and systems I may never use--because, as a consultant, I never know when it'll show up.
So I read this list, yes, and sometimes I might even be able to help someone.
Hi Dave and everyone else who may not currently be a Fedora user on this list. Participating here and elsewhere makes you part of the Fedora community and a welcome part of it. As another old guy on the list let me shoot Dave a big thank you for cut and paste. Not much code lasts as long as that has and still retains its usefulness. I can't imagine the volume of data touched by these programs over the years but I do know they made my computing experience better.
On the topic of using Fedora for servers I'll just say consider your choices and pick what works best for you. For most servers that won't be Fedora, but for some it will. Here is one high profile example from a few years back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner
John
Allegedly, on or about 18 April 2014, Matthew Miller sent:
Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses
It's a perfectly horrid model for running services. With each change in release, you don't just have to update the OS and software, but you've got to migrate all your data, too. Moving databases can be a nightmare, more so if the next release has deprecated the server that you were using, going beyond a backup and restore, now you have to deal with a translation.
On 04/18/2014 05:02 PM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 18 April 2014, Matthew Miller sent:
Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses
It's a perfectly horrid model for running services. With each change in release, you don't just have to update the OS and software, but you've got to migrate all your data, too.
This only applies, if the database application packages has changed in incompatible ways. This sometimes applies, but in many cases does not apply.
This however also would apply, if you had manually installed a database application package, and have to upgrade your application, because upstream or else is telling you, the version you have been using is insecure.
Ralf
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
For more, see the Fedora Server Working Group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server
Formed in October 2013. *cough* *cough*
FC
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened
This is not true. Please stop repeating it. Fedora is not a desktop-only OS, and can be (and *is*) used in many serious server contexts, even in production. You need to know what you're getting into and be willing to cope with the 13-month lifecycle and community support model, but it's a perfectly awesome fit for many uses, including possibly this one.
For more, see the Fedora Server Working Group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server
Well, any linux OS is an awesome fit for anything if you are "willing to cope" with whatever the hassle factor is for that OS. The point is that it *is* a hassle, not that it's one that can't be overcome with enough effort.
That's not a criticism of the short life cycle of Fedora, by the way. It's just that Fedora is a *different product.* I don't consider that a bad thing, it just means that Fedora is better at some things and CentOS/RHEL is better at others. I'm not sure that Fedora is made better were it to try to be more like CentOS/RHEL and have a long life cycle. RHEL/CentOS is good at being RHEL/CentOS, and Fedora is good at being Fedora.
Saying that you can use Fedora as a stable server is a little like saying that you can haul a couch in the back of a Prius -- if you are willing to deal with the hassles of tying it down and wedging it in. You can, but it's simpler and easier to throw it in the back of of your brother's pick-up and be done with it.
billo
On 04/15/2014 10:40 PM, Digimer wrote:
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a server-focused distro. RHEL/CentOS would make a much better OS, and if you needed something newer than it offers, check the EPEL repo.
Bull. It absolutely is QA'd and it absolutely is hardened. It is protected by essentially the same or even newer security technologies as Red Hat Enterprise Linux - SELinux, SSL, disk encryption, iptables, etc.
The life cycle is short, sure, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, with everything moving more towards ephemeral (cloud) computing, Fedora may actually have an *advantage* over RHEL for some workloads. There is no distro which is perfect for all workloads, but that does not mean that any distro automatically sucks for one workload. The answer, as always, is "it depends."
Now, I will freely admit I'm biased towards RHEL, since it's what I do for a living. I would absolutely recommend RHEL for production workloads, but strictly because of the support SLAs and longevity - not quality of code. But this claptrap about Fedora not being good on a server is pure rubbish. Stop denigrating the distro, as it is clear that you know not of what you speak.
On 19 April 2014 04:31, Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron@camerontech.com wrote:
On 04/15/2014 10:40 PM, Digimer wrote:
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a server-focused distro. RHEL/CentOS would make a much better OS, and if you needed something newer than it offers, check the EPEL repo.
Bull. It absolutely is QA'd and it absolutely is hardened. It is protected by essentially the same or even newer security technologies as Red Hat Enterprise Linux - SELinux, SSL, disk encryption, iptables, etc.
No firewall... ;) (for those following the devel list, for everyone else it *does* have a firewall. For the time being.)
The life cycle is short, sure, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, with everything moving more towards ephemeral (cloud) computing, Fedora may actually have an *advantage* over RHEL for some workloads. There is no distro which is perfect for all workloads, but that does not mean that any distro automatically sucks for one workload. The answer, as always, is "it depends."
I'd certainly say it depends, and since the original question was about developing a system to run on a platform that's what prompted me to point to the short life cycle originally. The more stock work you're doing the less it matters, and for something that's mainly MySQL maybe it doesn't matter that you are changing the system you run on annually or every six months (provided things are set up so reinstalling OS causes minimal pain). But there are plenty of situations where having to update all the components you use will mean you have to do quite a bit of porting work, and the difference between a new release and a stable one is mainly that major version numbers will get changed on things.
For the OPs original question, about motherboard chipsets, it does apply generally to Linux rather than Fedora, but generally intel chipsets are well supported. If not going for server kit which is certified to run linux then you will be either: googling for the motherboard model and "linux" to find other people who've used it or buying it and trying. However for those intel chipsets that have been around for a while it's probably enough to check linux support for them e.g. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_z77_chipset&... and unless there's some added feature you think you'll need you're probably good.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:07:11AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
On 19 April 2014 04:31, Thomas Cameron thomas.cameron@camerontech.com wrote:
On 04/15/2014 10:40 PM, Digimer wrote:
Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not a server OS. The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a server-focused distro. RHEL/CentOS would make a much better OS, and if you needed something newer than it offers, check the EPEL repo.
Bull. It absolutely is QA'd and it absolutely is hardened. It is protected by essentially the same or even newer security technologies as Red Hat Enterprise Linux - SELinux, SSL, disk encryption, iptables, etc.
No firewall... ;) (for those following the devel list, for everyone else it *does* have a firewall. For the time being.)
I just read a few messages on the thread; this is utterly stupid! I do not understand why compromising security for "just works" feel is a worthy idea. In my experience, none of the "just works" scenarios actually just works, there is always some minimal fiddling necessary.
For the interested:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/198041.html
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Rachmayanto Surjadi rachmayantos@sanatel.com wrote:
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
Fedora 18 is EOLed so don't even think about starting there. If you really want to use Fedora you need to be comfortable with upgrading at least once a year. Note that F19 will be EOLed when F21 comes out in a few months. Centos might be a better option.
A good way to test hardware compatibility is to try one of the Live versions booted from CD. They are very much desktop-oriented though.
poc
On 04/16/2014 06:29 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Rachmayanto Surjadi rachmayantos@sanatel.com wrote:
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
Fedora 18 is EOLed so don't even think about starting there. If you really want to use Fedora you need to be comfortable with upgrading at least once a year. Note that F19 will be EOLed when F21 comes out in a few months. Centos might be a better option.
A good way to test hardware compatibility is to try one of the Live versions booted from CD. They are very much desktop-oriented though.
poc
I agree with poc. I never upgrade Fedora without reading the problems on the forums for at least 6 months. Most servers across the world use CentOS and I can truly recommend CentOS 6.5 it is very much like Fedora but does not suffer problems inherrent with an upgrade. My home Fedora 19 has died a couple of times after routine yum updates, my ubuntu has never glitched and Centos keeps on keeping on.
If you use Intel or Gigabyte motherboards you probably won't have problems provided you purchase from someone who knows the technology and is not a windows aficionado. Most resellers are windowscentric and have no knowledge of nix type server OS or desktop systems (my 0.2c worth, no flame wars please) I've had Gigabyte mobos for years and never had issue with installing Fedora, Ubuntu or CentOS. You have been warned about Fedora 18 for good reason. Public facing servers must be stable, consistent and totally reliable. Roger
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
The mobo that got our interest are the ones with H77 or Z77 or H87 chipsets.
Is there any URL for me to get the information we need?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rachma
I don't want to start a religious thing here, but I *personally* wouldn't use Fedora for a production/enterprise system. The bottom line for me is that:
1) Fedora is always being fixed and futzed around with. That's great for a home laptop or personal server or something where lots of bugfixes and upgrades are great and if something goes wrong, you can always play with it. It's not so great if you want something that you just want to "run" all the time with minimal tinkering.
Almost every time one of those massive 300-bugfix upgrade batches come up, I end up getting something not working with something else, scratch my head and go "Damn. How'd that happen." Then I either try to workaround it, or I just shrug and assume that the *next* set of patches a few days later will fix whatever went wrong (and it almost always does). That's fine for my laptop. I wouldn't want to try to run a business on it -- though I'm sure many do, and I'm sure they are happy with it.
2) Fedora goes end of life quickly. F18 is not a good choice because of that, for instance. If you want to use fedora, you have to buy into doing installs/upgrades every year, and maybe even more frequently. Once again, that's great if you are into it, but not if you want stability.
For these reasons, I tend to use Fedora for my personal machines and machines that I don't mind getting under the hood on a lot. For other things, I tend to go to CentOS -- though I'd go RHEL if I had any money...
That doesn't answer your hardware question, of course, and I don't know the answer. All I can say is that I haven't had a basic chipset problem with Fedora in 10 years, but I've always bought commodity machines.
billo
On Apr 16, 2014 10:28 PM, "Bill Oliver" vendor@billoblog.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to
use Fedora for the server.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU)
really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or
Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from
mobo websites either.
The mobo that got our interest are the ones with H77 or Z77 or H87
chipsets.
Is there any URL for me to get the information we need?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Rachma
I don't want to start a religious thing here, but I *personally* wouldn't
use Fedora for a production/enterprise system. The bottom line for me is that:
- Fedora is always being fixed and futzed around with. That's great for
a home laptop or personal server or something where lots of bugfixes and upgrades are great and if something goes wrong, you can always play with it. It's not so great if you want something that you just want to "run" all the time with minimal tinkering.
Almost every time one of those massive 300-bugfix upgrade batches come
up, I end up getting something not working with something else, scratch my head and go "Damn. How'd that happen." Then I either try to workaround it, or I just shrug and assume that the *next* set of patches a few days later will fix whatever went wrong (and it almost always does). That's fine for my laptop. I wouldn't want to try to run a business on it -- though I'm sure many do, and I'm sure they are happy with it.
- Fedora goes end of life quickly. F18 is not a good choice because of
that, for instance. If you want to use fedora, you have to buy into doing installs/upgrades every year, and maybe even more frequently. Once again, that's great if you are into it, but not if you want stability.
For these reasons, I tend to use Fedora for my personal machines and
machines that I don't mind getting under the hood on a lot. For other things, I tend to go to CentOS -- though I'd go RHEL if I had any money...
That doesn't answer your hardware question, of course, and I don't know
the answer. All I can say is that I haven't had a basic chipset problem with Fedora in 10 years, but I've always bought commodity machines.
billo
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Would you recommend using something like Ubuntu instead of Fedora for work related system?
I moved from Ubuntu to Arch to Fedora. Fedora provides both latest innovations in Linux world and ease of use over something like Arch Linux.
I have recently started learning Java/Android. That means I need to focus more on learning Android and least on how to get something working on Fedora or fixing breakage that comes from flux of upgrades (Example -A bug that left Gnome users locked out and Bumblebee, VirtualBox may require special assistance at the time of kernel upgrade). Not to mention Google recommends Ubuntu for Android development.
Wondering what other folks have experienced.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
Would you recommend using something like Ubuntu instead of Fedora for work related system?
I moved from Ubuntu to Arch to Fedora. Fedora provides both latest innovations in Linux world and ease of use over something like Arch Linux.
I have recently started learning Java/Android. That means I need to focus more on learning Android and least on how to get something working on Fedora or fixing breakage that comes from flux of upgrades (Example -A bug that left Gnome users locked out and Bumblebee, VirtualBox may require special assistance at the time of kernel upgrade). Not to mention Google recommends Ubuntu for Android development.
Wondering what other folks have experienced.
No, I'd recommend CentOS or RHEL for a stable server. I don't have much against Ubuntu, but I like the "look and feel" of the Red Hat-related families. Since you migrated, you know that these different distros often put little things in different places, and from an admin perspective I don't like to have to keep asking myself stuff like "Should I write this script to grep through /var/log/messages or /var/log/syslog for this distro?" I do a lot of scripting, and moving from yum to apt-get, etc. is not work the effort of modifying my scripts and such -- unless I have a good reason to...
billo
On 16.04.2014 03:43, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote:
Hi all:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
The question is how do we know that this hardware (motherboard, CPU) really support Fedora version 18 or 19? We are looking at mobo from Asus or Intel or Gigabyte, but did not find firm answer. We did not find the info from mobo websites either.
The mobo that got our interest are the ones with H77 or Z77 or H87 chipsets.
Is there any URL for me to get the information we need?
HCL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HCL https://www.kernel.org/
poma
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi < rachmayantos@sanatel.com> wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
My advice, grab either CentOS http://www.centos.org/ or OracleLinux http://mirrors.wimmekes.net/pub/iso/
If the latter, configure it to use public-yum for free updates https://blogs.oracle.com/wim/entry/setting_up_oracle_linux_6
And then, add the official MySQL yum repos. http://insidemysql.com/announcing-new-yum-repositories-for-mysql/ https://dev.mysql.com/downloads/repo/
so you can get faster MySQL than the forks and avoid the issues discussed here http://datacharmer.blogspot.com.ar/2013/09/forking-mysql-for-how-long-can-fo...
This will also allow you to experiment with the 5.7 release and install the latest greatest MySQL 5.7 dev releases
OR, go CentOS.
Using Fedora is also possible, but as many of the people here have already commented, you'll have to deal with more frequent upgrades...
I personally have both, on different systems.
FC PS: OL 7 beta is out if you fancy testing it and comparing it with Fedora and/or CentOS http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/linux/downloads/oracle-linu...
On 18.04.2014 00:48, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi < rachmayantos@sanatel.com> wrote:
We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning to use Fedora for the server.
My advice, grab either CentOS http://www.centos.org/ or OracleLinux http://mirrors.wimmekes.net/pub/iso/
If the latter, configure it to use public-yum for free updates https://blogs.oracle.com/wim/entry/setting_up_oracle_linux_6
And then, add the official MySQL yum repos. http://insidemysql.com/announcing-new-yum-repositories-for-mysql/ https://dev.mysql.com/downloads/repo/
so you can get faster MySQL than the forks and avoid the issues discussed here http://datacharmer.blogspot.com.ar/2013/09/forking-mysql-for-how-long-can-fo...
This will also allow you to experiment with the 5.7 release and install the latest greatest MySQL 5.7 dev releases
OR, go CentOS.
Using Fedora is also possible, but as many of the people here have already commented, you'll have to deal with more frequent upgrades...
I personally have both, on different systems.
FC PS: OL 7 beta is out if you fancy testing it and comparing it with Fedora and/or CentOS http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/linux/downloads/oracle-linu...
OL or LOL? :)
Red Hat Announces Availability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Beta
December 11, 2013 <<
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2013/12/red-hat-announces-availabil...
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Release Candidate Now Available
April 15, 2014 <<
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc...
poma
Red Hat Announces Availability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Beta
December 11, 2013 <<
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2013/12/red-hat-announces-availabil...
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Release Candidate Now Available
April 15, 2014 <<
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc...
BTW Seven.CentOS.org http://seven.centos.org/
New Look. New CentOS. http://devel.centos.org/
CentOS has joined forces with Red Hat, working to provide a common platform for open source community project needs. Read our announcement here, then come join the conversation on irc, the mailing lists or the forums.
Super duper ha? :)
poma
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM, poma pomidorabelisima@gmail.com wrote:
OL or LOL? :)
Red Hat Announces Availability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Beta
December 11, 2013 <<
The RHEL 6.5 source was out Nov 21 http://www.redhat.com/about/news/press-archive/2013/11/red-hat-launches-late...
By Nov 27 ORCL had a corresponding OL 6.5 release. https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/el-errata/2013-November/003829.html
Dec 1st came CentOS, 2013 http://www.techienews.co.uk/973494/centos-6-5-released/
So... I'm happy to see that RHAT has joined forces with the community to get CentOS get releases out faster. ;) And since we're talking beta not final versions, I guess I little delay is no big deal.
In the end we all benefit from competition, case in point:
Linux containers (LXC), https://blogs.oracle.com/wim/entry/oracle_linux_containers_continued
DTrace support ported from Solaris http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/servers-storage-dev/dtrace-on-lin...
PHP 5.5.10 with Dtrace enabled... https://oss.oracle.com/projects/php/
Newer kernels for testing @ Playground http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/playground/latest/x86_64/
So, I kinda welcome some much needed competition to RHEL. Specially on the pricing front if you want faster fixes via paid support http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1519/3skj.png
But that is just me. I also have a CentOS box just to have the baseline code that everyone runs.... Competition IS good, "a rising tide lifts all the boats", so to speak.
FC
-
Cristian Sava -
Dave Ihnat -
David -
Digimer -
EGO-II.1 -
Fernando Cassia -
Ian Malone -
inode0 -
Joe Zeff -
Matthew Miller -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
poma -
Rachmayanto Surjadi -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rick Stevens -
Robin Laing -
Roger -
Russell Miller -
Steve Searle -
Sudhir Khanger -
Suvayu Ali -
thomas cameron -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley -
William Oliver