Re: FC5 in a commercial product (was Re: Wanna give me a hand debunking this?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Eric wrote:

At 06:46 PM 11/20/2007, Les Mikesell wrote:

<LM>>>>>The piece that it misses is that there are (so far...) 3 releases of fedora for every RHEL. As the RHEL cut time approaches, fedora becomes increasingly reliable, so RH resources are doing something. However, after the cut (which will have pretty much the same versions of everything the concurrent fedora has minus some kernel features), fedora returns to its wild and crazy ways for its next 2 releases.<<<<

Where did FC5 fit in the sequence? If the 3:1 ratio is more or less absolute, I'd guess that FC5 was Wild And Crazy #2B and FC6 was Sorta Quiet And Stable #2.

(We use FC6 for our company's Asterisk PBX server and it has been rock solid so far.)

We have a new client who is using FC5 in a commercial coin-operated entertainment machine. Now, obviously a software failure in a machine like that isn't going to cause any direct injury (might cause indirect injury when the user gets pissed and throws a chair through the front of the unit) but neither will it help the company's reputation in any measurable way.

I have already told them that using Fedora (any Fedora) in a commercial product is probably Not A Good Idea, for reasons elucidated often in this and other forums. Are there any articles or white papers written by members of the Fedora team, or others who know far more than I ever will about this stuff, that I can download and show to our client?

I have suggested that they move to RHEL or CentOS... any others that are specifically targeted to reasonably-high-reliability commercial systems?

(There are no hard real time requirements in the system.)

But now, let's back off for a minute and think about this.

The kernel is pretty much the same across all distros, isn't it? Isn't F7's 2.6.21 pretty much the same as RHEL's 2.6.21 or CentOS's 2.6.21

RHEL and clones do not have 2.6.21. I run a RHEL5 clone on my desktop:
16:48 [summer@numbat ~]$ uname -r
2.6.18-8.1.15.el5
05:56 [summer@numbat ~]$

RHEL and clones have 2.6.9.

Fedora change kernel versions, FC7 never had a kernel that old.


except for some differences in configuration? And are the kernels still following the convention of the even-numbered releases (2.4.x, 2.6.x) being the stable ones and the odd-numbered releases (2.3.x, 2.5.x) being the unstable "development" releases?

No. There is not 2.7, development's done in the mainline kernel these days.

Previously, vendors were expending lots of effort retrofitting development features to so-called stable kernels.


If that is true, and understanding that individual kernel releases may have problems unique to that release (e.g. 2.6.23 might have broken something that worked fine in 2.6.22), what else is it about Fedora that makes it not-quite-ready-for-prime-time? The applications and

the enterprise kernels are going to be maintained at that level (though probably with some retrofitting) for years by all vendors in the enterprise market.


utilities, and perhaps some of the drivers and daemons, right? So, if our client's application isn't using any of the distro's applications, and only a minimal number of drivers and daemons (that can be individually validated, or perhaps rolled back to previous stable versions), what is it about Fedora that's likely to cause trouble?

I would prefer to base from EL because, at any time, its worst quality is likely to be at least as good as Fedora/OpenSuSE/etc worst. That's why folk pay for it.

That aside, if they're not going to update firmware it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Probably they're better working from Debian which has a smaller footprint, or Gentoo with (I haven't checked, but probably[1]) has a smaller footprint still, or even a specialist embedded distro.




[1]Years ago, on RHL 7.3 I tried to install ghostscript without X. Ghostscript pulled in part of X (probably for some fonts). On Gentoo, one would set up the build system to not support X, and the Ghostscript package would build without X and so be smaller.


--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Please do not reply off-list

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux