Production Version of Fedora?

[Bill Morris]

Folks,

Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
a production web server or is it all considered beta?

Will there be stable production releases in the future?

Bill Morris

[Peter Boy]

Am Mit, 2003-10-29 um 11.01 schrieb Bill Morris:
> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?

currently beta
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?

see htp://fedora.redhat.com

scheduled general availibility is Nov. 3 2003

[Lauri Jutila]

> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?
>
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?

Hi Bill,

According to the Fedora Project schedule
(http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/), first release
considered stable will be released on Nov 3rd, 2003. Until then, all is
beta. :)

--
Lauri Jutila
Chief Linux Fellow, Reforge
[e-mail]
http://www.reforge.fi

Production Version of Fedora? / New Release

[Satish Balay]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Lauri Jutila wrote:
> > Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> > a production web server or is it all considered beta?
> >
> > Will there be stable production releases in the future?
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> According to the Fedora Project schedule
> (http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/), first release
> considered stable will be released on Nov 3rd, 2003. Until then, all is
> beta. :)

Yup, the latest rawhide update already has the new release number. So,
the official release is probably not very far..

[asterix]: rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-1-1
[asterix]: cat /etc/redhat-release 
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
[asterix]:

Satish

Production Version of Fedora? / New Release

[Michael Knepher]

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 08:02, Satish Balay wrote:
> Yup, the latest rawhide update already has the new release number. So,
> the official release is probably not very far..
>
> [asterix]: rpm -q fedora-release
> fedora-release-1-1
> [asterix]: cat /etc/redhat-release 
> Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)

Does this mean release 2 will be code-named Stookey or Travers?
> [asterix]:

Production Version of Fedora? / New Release

[Edward Croft]

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 18:16, Michael Knepher wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 08:02, Satish Balay wrote:
> > Yup, the latest rawhide update already has the new release number. So,
> > the official release is probably not very far..
> >
> > [asterix]: rpm -q fedora-release
> > fedora-release-1-1
> > [asterix]: cat /etc/redhat-release 
> > Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
>
> Does this mean release 2 will be code-named Stookey or Travers?
> > [asterix]:

Someone is showing their age!

Production Version of Fedora? / New Release

[Michael Knepher]

On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 05:50, Edward Croft wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 18:16, Michael Knepher wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 08:02, Satish Balay wrote:
> > > Yup, the latest rawhide update already has the new release number. So,
> > > the official release is probably not very far..
> > >
> > > [asterix]: rpm -q fedora-release
> > > fedora-release-1-1
> > > [asterix]: cat /etc/redhat-release 
> > > Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow)
> >
> > Does this mean release 2 will be code-named Stookey or Travers?
> > > [asterix]:
>
> Someone is showing their age!

That's what you think ;oP
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 05:01:11AM -0500, Bill Morris wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?

Not yet.
See http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
The estimated general availability of first FC release
is Nov, 3rd.
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?

Yes.

Jakub

[Ted Kaczmarek]

I wouldn't go their, use the latest ES instead.
Ted
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 05:01, Bill Morris wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?
>
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?
>
> Bill Morris
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Elliot Lee]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Bill Morris wrote:
> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?
>
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?

As I understand it (*), Fedora Core's main target is developers and
enthusiasts, not 'must-be-super-stable' production deployments.

In other words, the goal is to develop amazing & cool new software, not to
make it polished for deployment. That's something for other projects or
products to take care of.

(*) according to http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
-- Elliot
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves 
on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Elliot Lee wrote:
> As I understand it (*), Fedora Core's main target is developers and
> enthusiasts, not 'must-be-super-stable' production deployments.
>
> In other words, the goal is to develop amazing & cool new software, not
> to make it polished for deployment. That's something for other projects
> or products to take care of.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if eg. the
Fedora Legacy project would make Fedora usable for
longer term deployments.

OTOH, I expect those people to fix whatever they want
to fix, not necessarily what you want to fix. If you
want to file "my Oracle is going slow, please fix it"
style bug reports Fedora might not be for you. ;)

[Nils Philippsen]

On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 14:14, Elliot Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Bill Morris wrote:
> > Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> > a production web server or is it all considered beta?
> >
> > Will there be stable production releases in the future?
>
> As I understand it (*), Fedora Core's main target is developers and
> enthusiasts, not 'must-be-super-stable' production deployments.
>
> In other words, the goal is to develop amazing & cool new software, not to
> make it polished for deployment. That's something for other projects or
> products to take care of.

I don't think Fedora will not be polished enough for deployment -- it
will most likely be other things that will keep "the enterprise" from
using it:

- no support
- no guarantees (e.g. ABI-wise)
- short life cycle (though Fedora Legacy might weaken this point)

I for myself expect (not in the sense of demanding it -- except from
myself -- but rather thinking it will happen this way) Fedora to be very
polished, after all it's the developers' collective reputation that's on
stake ;-).

Nils

[Ben Russo]

Bill Morris wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Is there a version of Fedora that can be installed on
> a production web server or is it all considered beta?
>
> Will there be stable production releases in the future?

I'm sure that Fedora will be rock-solid stable.
However that isn't the */only/* consideration when choosing an OS
for a "PRODUCTION" web server.   The other things, such as:

_Code Stability_ 
             ( Fedora probably won't be back-porting bug/security fixes,
                instead when a bug/security problem is discovered
                      {in Openssl or Apache for example}
                Fedora will just jump to the next stable version of the 
package
                that has the bug fixed.  This means that you may also have
                to upgrade all packages that depend on the SW you are
                upgrading.   As you can imagine, if you have developed lot's
                of custom web server code that worked with a version of
                 Apache and the versions of Modules for Apache, it may not
                 be very simple to upgrade.
                Also, Fedora has stated that there is no GUARANTEE of 
support
                 for a release beyond 8-12 months.  This may mean that you
                 will be faced with */major/* upgrades to your system 
about once
                 a year.)

_Hardware Certification_
               ( You need a hardware/OS vendor pair that work together when
                  releasing a new kernel patch/version or XF86 packages,
                   otherwise you may find that needed upgrade paths 
won't work.
                   I know, you are thinking that you don't need to 
upgrade your
                   kernel.  But what will you do when you *have* to upgrade
                   mod_ssl, and it requires a slightly newer version of 
glibc,
                   and the slightly newer version of glibc requires a newer
                   kernel rpm....)

_Software Certification_
               (  Many software vendors are certifying their products on 
Linux,
                   RedHat ES or SUSE Server releases are going to be the 
most
                   popularly cross-certified.  Oracle, Veritas, Netcool, 
etc....

Believe me, I have had excrutiating arguments with SW 
vendors
                   trying to explain to them that my custom version of 
Linux that
                   I built in house on my own RPM repository is 
sufficiently like
                   RH version X, that they should *_please_*  offer me 
the support
                   that I have paid for even though they only officially 
support 7.2 )

_Training Certification, Consultancy, Support _
                (  Cross your fingers and knock on wood.  But what if your
                     cheif web developer, your system admin and your project
                      manager are all /god forbid/ hit by a meteor at 
the same time.

You are now left with a PRODUCTION server that needs 
tending, and
                   the only people who knew how to support it are dead.

If only you had built your production service using 
COTS technology
                      and methods, you could find, hire and be sure of 
the skill set
                      of a temporary contractor to help take care of 
your system.)

Now, it is possible that if you want to support all your own
Enterprise IT infrastructure (SW stack for things like management, 
backup, monitoring etc...)
And you want to have your own testing laboratory where you can do
patch upgrades and regression testing before implementing things on the
production systems.  And you are prepared to maintain the handfull of 
software
package specific versions that you will inevitably get yourself tied into.

I however would suggest that you just use RedHat Enterprise Server.
Version 3 just came out.  It is very nice.  Sure it costs a several hundred
dollars a year for an RHN subscription, but it is worth it.

-Ben.