Mascot - Blue Arrara

[Rahul Sundaram]

Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram escribió:
>> Why?
> 
> That has been the attitude from quite a bit of people, starting by the 
> devs, Red Hat and others. I don't mean that Fedora is a bad system (by 
> any means!! totally opposite!) it is an excellent home OS and home 
> server where tasks are less critical, and due to the amount of updates 
> released for it, it is a great Desktop system, but a lousy server for 
> mission critical and key components on production servers (due to 
> downtimes related to the amount of updates). I fought the idea of Fedora 
> being relegated at first, but I've grown to understand why that is so... 
> Maybe, and just maybe, we should market Fedora as an excellent home OS 
> alternative (much more reliable than many others, and gives a LOT of 
> home users a truly FREE [as in "gratis" and "liberty"] alternative 
> platform). I'm sure Fedora would make also a GREAT corporate Workstation 
> and Desktop OS, but due to its short life-cycle, it is kind of difficult 
> keeping up, plus the overhead on IT staff for massive upgrades to the 
> next version. Even with the extended life-expectancy of a Fedora system 
> (IIRC it is now 13 months from release) it is still too short for a 
> company with more than 50 desktops to maintain and migrate every 13 
> months, it'd add too much of an overhead for the IT staff.

I had deployed over 100 desktops in Fedora working for my previous 
company and they are happy using it.  Me and many other colleagues and 
various organizations and individuals are relying on Fedora for their 
day to day needs which by my definition are production boxes. You are 
just jumping to conclusions.

. The point was in
> regards to the community and the branches, and how "stable" Debian 
> remains, compared to Fedora (i.e. longer release cycle for the "stable" 
> tree, which is why [amongst other things] it is so widely deployed in 
> servers), which is the main argument for a lot of "production 
> environments" to reject Fedora in favor for RHEL or CentOS or another 
> more "stable" distro, in the understanding here that by "stable" I mean 
> a slower paced evolution and longer product life. 

You mean robust here. However people do install and prefer a Linux box 
with faster updates for certain types of servers and systems. In FUDCon 
Boston a end user was arguing passionately that Fedora is what he 
preferred to install in his server boxes due to his unique needs in HPC 
(High Performance Clustering) environment.

> Thanks for the link, much appreciated. I remember reading this interview 
> back in the day, and I know that Max is working hard in trying to erase 
> the "stigmas" of Fedora, and believe me, I *do* share his points... 
> Until the real world steps in... But as he himself says, nothing is set 
> in stone in Fedora, and it will evolve, maybe it will do so that it may 
> even be embraced in production environments (and I do believe it has 
> what it takes to do so)... the question is "Do the people responsible of 
> decision making for such environments agree?"

It is not our decision and unless we really know all the various 
factors, we would not able to make any guesses on whether it is a 
responsible decision or not. Your generalized claim
is just not true in many cases.

Our job is to produce the best possible system within the constraints of 
our time and resources to meet our objectives. Not to be judgmental 
about how it is being used or deployed.

Rahul