RHEL 3.0 or Fedora for a 'production environment' ?

[Ben Steeves]

On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 13:08, shrek-m at gmx.de wrote:
> Oscar A. Valdez wrote:
> 
> >Does this statement from Red Hat mean that I can't get the same from
> >Fedora? I don't think so. As long as Fedora provides stable, compatible
> >packages, bug and security fixes and upgrades, I think I can live with
> >it in my 'production environment'
> >
> >Anyone care to comment?
> >
> 
> 
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html
> 
> 
> you will update 1 or 2 times per year all your 50 servers/workstations 
> in a production environment without redhat-support ??
> 
> good luck.

Why not?  Many companies are already running RH7/8/9 without support. 
If it worked for them them, it will continue to do so, I should think. 
For companies with sufficient available Linux/RedHat knowledge, I don't
see the bifurcation of the distribution to be a major issue.  

Basically, if you were already using Redhat in an RHEL-type manner
(i.e., paying for support directly from Redhat), then buying RHEL will
continue to work for you.  If you weren't -- i.e., your local Linux
gurus were providing support for you, then Fedora should be sufficient
for your production environment.  

Where I work, we have a combination of RHEL Redhat-supported machines
and machines running RH7/8/9 without support from Redhat.  We don't
expect to change that in the future.  We already have Fedora on several
test environments so we can learn it sufficiently to support it.  For
us, the Fedora/RHEL bifurcation will be business as usual.  I can't
imagine that we are unique in this.

-- 
Ben Steeves                     _                    bcs at metacon.ca
 The ASCII ribbon campaign     ( )               ben.steeves at unb.ca
   against HTML e-mail          X                GPG ID: 0xB3EBF1D9
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii    / \     Yahoo Messenger: ben_steeves