EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> said:
> On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> ><johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>>They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's
> >>>just a Fedora that's been hardened and held to a certain level of
> >>>ABI/API compatibility.
> >>Which is my point exactly instead of helping increasing the overall quality
> >>of Fedora the infrastructure decide to run to another distribution.
> >>
> >>RHEL != Fedora
> >But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
> >suitable for running servers!
> 
> Says who?

Says history.  Fedora extended-support releases were tried and failed.

> >   No one in their right mind runs any
> >rapid development distribution (not just Fedora) on critical
> >infrastructure.
> 
> That's your opinion and I'm sure many in the server sub-community
> disagree with that statement.

It is the opinion of many professional system adminstrators.

> I have had no problem deploying Fedora and using Fedora in critical
> infrastructural in similar fashion as Andy wrote on his blog [1]

Creating throw-away instances and replacing them every 6 months may be
okay for the rapid-development web designers, but most real system
adminstrators have more than enough work to do than to re-test their
application stack for new deployments every 6 months.  I build servers
to last for years so that I don't have to touch them again for a long
time.

-- 
Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>