Garrick Staples [mailto:garrick@xxxxxxx] said: > Me. I'm currently talking to my boss about having a few build machines. > We already have mirrors.usc.edu to distro the distro. Very cool. > I need a distro with 18 to 24 months of packaged updates, performance > optimizations for i686/x86_64/itanium/ppc, 1000+ machines, and has > certified compatibility with a few 3rd party software packages. If you're rolling your own distro, who is going to certify compatibility? > I don't need support from RH, annual upgrades, unfeasibly licensing. I tried the support and the few times I actually opened tickets RH was incapable of resolving them in any reasonable amount of time. I was flat out told that core things like LDAP authentication or autofs were not supported (this was in RHAS 2.1). > I figure using fedora is fine for x86. We just need to build it for the > other arches and maintain the errata rpms. I've presented this to my > boss as $700,000 to RH, or a few months of my time to do my own builds. I, too, am trying to learn RHL enough to roll my own distro. It seems to me that the fedora announcement is another step towards dumping the consumer distro and investing all R&D into the RHEL lineup. While RH claims that Fedora is a community run distro, it is under RH's leadership (an organization that has no real experience or credibility in running community projects). It seems that many of us here on this list have similar goals. i.e. an RPM based distro that uses yum & kickstart, remains stable, is well maintained, has a long life cycle, etc. Do we have enough in common to pool resources? Magnus Hedemark Linux Network Admin TruePosition, Inc.
