> >So , IMHO, there's no need to post every 2 sentences a discclaimer saying > >"Warning! F.L.P. is not corporate-grade nor ISO9001! " > > > > > There is still a great mis-understanding among the Linux community > at large on this point. To many, FC == "RedHat Linux" and they are > in denial that FC is bleeding edge, unsupported and will require > frequent upgrades/reboots/bug fixes. > > The full weight of what it means when an FC project is migrated to > FL is lost to most. > > I really wish people understood that: > > Fedora Core is a community based linux distribution that will be > supported by the FC community for aproximately 9 - 10 months, at > which point limited support for major security updates will be > availble for another 9 - 10 months by the FL community. Only use > FC if you plan on upgrading your system every 6 months and only count > on FL to provide the absolute essential updates for a limited > time after the FC release has been retired. Total support for a > FC distribution will not exceed 18 months in most cases. > > I really don't think it hurts to make it clear. People always get > upset when their expectations have been let-down. Helping people get > their expectations in line with reality can avoid a lot of hard > feelings, IMHO. > > It is my personal opinion, and I've been flamed for this before, > that FL is only a transitional project. I think that when people > realize FC is unsupported and that they should upgrade whenever a > new version comes out, demand for FL will decrease. If a > person/organization needs a supported distro that can be put in > place for 1 - 5 years, FC is NOT the right choice. Anything that the > FL community can do to make this point clear will be beneficial in > the long term. (and will ensure that FL ceases to exist in another > year or two) I would tend to agree with you there Matthew. When I started with installing FC1, then FC2, then FC3 releases on servers (upgraded from prior RH releases), I didn't fully grasp an understanding of what it meant for production servers, and what ended up being an upgrade treadmill. For the servers I was rolling out, I found myself having to redo builds, sometimes from scratch, to build, test, re-test, re-build, till the server was guaranteed to be rock solid. then roll-out, and a short time later, having to do it all again. I realised what FC was, but didn't really understand the committment that was required to upgrades when running it on so many servers. I even considered skipping even numbered releases and going with odd (fc2 skip, fc4 skip, etc). But in the end I sat down and looked at the bigger picture, and ending up settling with alternative RHEL releases, which satisfied my requirements to a tee. Michael. > FC == `uptime` < 270 days > FC + FL == `uptime` < 500 days > RHEL/SLES == `uptime` > 500 days > > -- > Matthew Nuzum <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > www.followers.net - Makers of "Elite Content Management System" > View samples of Elite CMS in action by visiting > http://www.followers.net/portfolio/ > > -- > > fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list ------- End of Original Message ------- -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
