fedora-it community site on Ubuntu server

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Jan 11 05:52:11 UTC 2011

On 01/10/2011 05:55 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 01/10/2011 05:27 PM, seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 17:21 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>> We do this because the lifecycle of Fedora is not compatible with
>>>>> providing and maintaining a long life hosting infrastructure. Does that
>>>>> mean that Fedora is not an ideal platform for server deployments lasting
>>>>> longer than a year and a half? Yes, in my humble opinion.
>>>> You are expecting users to live with this life-cycle (on servers and
>>>> clients), so you telling us that Fedora is unsuitable for Fedora's own
>>>> servers seems rather poor to me.
>>> We want to provide stability, which does not mean constantly upgrading
>>> the server's base os.
>> But you are expecting Fedora's users to do so?
> I'm fairly certain Seth isn't expecting Fedora users to use Fedora on
> their server.
> We have this conversation every few months.
I am well aware about this.

>  It's just about picking the
> right tool for the job.

Partially agreed - However, your answer implies that Fedora is not the 
right tool for the job - I question this.

>  Too many people think that every distro should be
> used for every use case and that one distro is somehow 'better'.
That's not what I think.

I think that Linux distros (Unlike other OSes) need to be versatile 
toolkits which can be deployed for various use-cases on servers as well 
as on clients, on single user systems as well as on multi-user systems.

> It's just about identifying what ones needs are, and picking the best OS
> for the need.
I don't agree with this. Provided the versalitity and flexibity Linux 
has (had?), to me, it's a matter of "picking a usable configuration of a 
distro" and not a matter of picking "the optimal OS".

Or differently: As everywhere in life, you need to compromise between 
"the optimal tool" and the tools you have/you can afford/you can operate.

That said, o me personally, RHEL is not an alternative to Fedora for 
various, technical and other reasons (#1 reason: lack of man-power to 
cope with "yet another distro").

> In Fedora's case we do have Fedora on some servers, but for
> most of our needs RHEL is a better fit.
Well, ... you are missing many opportunities to
demonstrate/test Fedora's suitability/identify where Fedora's design 
lacks on servers.


More information about the advisory-board mailing list