Any hope for system-config-services ?
agraham at g-b.net
Fri Jul 22 00:59:08 UTC 2011
On 07/21/2011 10:58 AM, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:26 AM, agraham wrote:
> Replying here only once, this is not content for test@ IMHO
>> I disagree with the propaganda pumped out by RH et al about Fedora being
>> a only test bed for RHEL.
> I don't know who is telling that, but people at Red Hat for sure do not.
> We think of Fedora as the upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
So why is the message from Redhat always Fedora is "unstable,
experimental, for the brave!", to me this just FUD so that people won't
use it in production.
>> Fedora is community driven and owned by the
>> commuinty, but sometimes I really get the feeling there is another
>> agenda at work here, namely the disrupted changes added with each new
>> Fedora release which prevents it becoming really stable, an example of
>> this is indeed systemd, (other examples are Network Manager, Pulseaudio
>> back in 2007), these "pre-alpha" where "dumped" into fedora, replacing
>> major subsystems with little or no testing whatsoever and have caused
>> huge amounts of pain and time wasting, this of course backs-up the
>> propaganda and agenda I mentioned earlier.
> Well, Ubuntu isn't anything better in that regard. That's what
> development is for IMHO. If you are looking for a rock-solid, stable OS
> with support - Red Hat has a subscription for that ;-)
Nicely put, see my comment below.
> Fedora is fast moving, sometimes more experimental as others, brave to
> try where others discuss, based on technical advancement.
The smolt data seems to indicate that a are millions of brave soles out
there using Fedora!
>> I don't use RHEL (unless there is a really good use case e.g. production
>> DB) because it's basically just OLDWARE, and CENTOS is even OLDEWARE.
> Progress, stability, free - pick two, getting all is a real problem ...
> You want progress and free? --> Fedora
> You want Stability and free? --> CentOS
> You want Stability and Progress? --> Red Hat Enterpise Linux
> At least IMHO
I hear this "you can only have 2 of 3" take your pick in business all
the time, and that is simply not true, it just sounds good (as long as
you understand and accept the risks.), I choose to have all 3.
Does this mean that Fedora can never be a stable server OS, and if so on
what basis?, after all if it's RHEL's upstream and kernel.org is
Fedora's upstream (kernel wise) where does the instability come from and
why can we not fix it in Fedora?
If there was no commercial interest from (e.g. from RH), would we have
all 3 now? and that's crux of my concern, people would not be selling
unstable FUD, indeed it would be just the opposite.
Jan, don't get me wrong, there is an absolute need for Redhat's
subscriptions, unquestionably, and they do a fantastic job, but that's
not my point.
More information about the test