Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[David G. Mackay]

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 14:23 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David G. Mackay wrote:
> > 
> > Now, if we're talking a system that's handling financial transactions
> > that has to be available 24/7, then it's another situation entirely.
> 
> I assumed that the word 'servers' in the subject meant that the services 
> mattered to someone...

To quote the folks from (now defunct) Data General, "Not everything
worth doing is worth doing well."  The amount of concern for a web
server that's primarily serving up the family photos to the remote
relatives "matters", but not necessarily much.  The services in F9 Beta
"matter", but I'm setting up my test environment in a VM, so if it goes
KFB then I haven't lost anything much.

> > I've been in shops like that, and am aware of the practices necessary to
> > sustain that.  I don't, however, need a disaster recovery plan with a
> > hot backup site for my video and music collection.
> 
> If reliability over some long interval isn't important to you, then this 
> thread probably isn't very interesting.

You still don't see the cost/benefit analysis that I'm applying to a
home server.  I can tolerate some downtime, but it's nice to have a
distro with a longer life cycle so that I don't have to do major
upgrades to my server every six to nine months just to keep it up to
date.  My primary consideration there would be security updates, and
yes, I realize that I could skip releases with Fedora without losing the
security updates.  By the same token, a problem in F7 isn't likely to
get the same level of response as one in F8.

Dave