On 01/10/2011 05:27 PM, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 17:21 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> We do this because the lifecycle of Fedora is not compatible with >>> providing and maintaining a long life hosting infrastructure. Does that >>> mean that Fedora is not an ideal platform for server deployments lasting >>> longer than a year and a half? Yes, in my humble opinion. >> >> You are expecting users to live with this life-cycle (on servers and >> clients), so you telling us that Fedora is unsuitable for Fedora's own >> servers seems rather poor to me. > > We want to provide stability, which does not mean constantly upgrading > the server's base os. But you are expecting Fedora's users to do so? >>> Don't get me wrong, the lifecycle of Fedora is great for many things, >>> but the lifecycle of RHEL is far more appropriate for our hosting and >>> infrastructure needs. >> Don't get me wrong - Fedora's life-cycle works very well, even on servers. > > Doesn't work for me and never really has. It works for me - *on servers and clients*. That said, to me the real issues with Fedora on servers is not the life-cycle. It's Fedora silently having been converted into a (mostly single-user) desktop OS, with many of its key components not being suitable for server usage. Ralf _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
