Thanks a lot to everybody who responded my question. I got the impression that for production better use non-Fedora (Centos, RH) so as to minimize the frequent-updates work. For development stage it seems that using Fedora would not be a big issue. I will consult my programmer about this advice, since he usually works with Fedora. Just interesting fact: my colleague has run an apps with MySQL DB, on Fedora 6 from 2008 in desktop-configured as server, found no issue until now and never upgrade the Fedora. Regards, Rachma -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralf Corsepius Sent: 17 April 2014 00:25 To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Need advice On 04/16/2014 11:12 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > On 16 April 2014 05:45, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/16/2014 05:40 AM, Digimer wrote: >>> >>> On 15/04/14 09:43 PM, Rachmayanto Surjadi wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> We are developing internal software using MySql dB and are planning >>>> to use Fedora for the server. >>> >>> >>> Please don't do that. Fedora is awesome, but it's a desktop OS, not >>> a server OS. >> >> I do not agree with this statement. Fedora is a good choice for >> development purposes, both on servers and on clients. >> >> >>> The life cycle is way to short and it's not hardened like a >>> >>> server-focused distro. >> >> Well, Fedora's short life cycle and update rate imposes more admin >> work on both clients and servers, but this doesn't mean the situation >> is not manageable. >> >> I would not choose Fedora on install-and-forget client nor server >> installations - But if staff can manage the updates/upgrades, I do >> not see much reasons for not using Fedora. >> > > For development, fine. For hosting some application? Probably not. Like I said, if staff/admins can manage it, why not? > With Fedora you are looking at updating at least once a year, which > means planning around doing that as well as potentially dealing with > porting your setup to a newer infrastructure every time you do. Correct. > It can > be done. Correct - How much effort this means, depends upon your setup. I've been running Fedora servers for several years, without many problems, with upgrading efforts varying in large degree. Eg. the effort of upgrading from f16->f17 was such kind of unbearable, I migrated some machine from Fedora to CentOS. However, but f19->f20 was 3-4 hours per machine with actual labor time being ca. 1/2 hour (the rest went unattended). Meanwhile, I turned these CentOS machines back to Fedora, because the effects of age of CentOS gradually showed and were causing additional work. And ... wrt. client vs. servers setup: From my experience, setting up Fedora on servers often is easier than on clients, with routine maintenance being the same as on Fedora. The only real difference is the 1/2-1 year upgrade cycle. > There are even some advantages, but it requires you to know what > you're signing up for. Correct. Both Fedora and CentOS have their pros and cons. One needs to find a balance/compromise, depending upon your demands, skills, staff, time, etc. Ralf -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
