On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I'd like to re-iterate that nothing I have posted
> is intended to be a criticism of the Fedora Core
> Project, or any of the people working on it.
I didn't take your statements as anything but professional and
considerate.
> I've found the FC people to be very cordial.
> (I've been somewhat active on the FC mail echo.)
Many of them, at least the Red Hat employees, also work on RHEL too.
> However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure
> applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level".
Which was the same argument in the Red Hat Linux era too.
Red Hat's continual and unofficial attitude was "we support
the last .2 until the next .2 comes out." Unfortunately,
popularity resulted in expectations, etc...
This first resulted in Red Hat Linux 6.2"E" -- the first
Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It went largely ignored. SuSE
introduced SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 and the
industry liked a separate product, even if it was still
based on the same packages as the "regular" one.
The final straw was probably when people were still
standardizing on Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 after they came out,
let alone expected Red Hat Linux 6.2 to be supported forever
(which Red Hat did for over 3 years). So eventually Red Hat laid down
the "1 year updates only" gauntlet once Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1
came out (later to be known as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 on-ward).
SuSE has similar support limitations, up to 2 years although
they have not always made that. Which is why SLES 7 came
out with 5+ years of support, matching what RHL6.2"E" had,
which Red Hat started to match with RHAS 2.1 late in the RHL7
series.
> I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around
> underneath my development. I'm more interested in
> Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in
> and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than
> in getting it to work.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including the Red Hat Desktop
volume licenses, is your ideal solution then when you
want a subscription and Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
When you don't, CentOS is the natural choice since it is
not only built from RHEL SRPMS almost verbatim (sans
trademark issues), but CentOS maintains a 1:1 package
rebuild.
CentOS Plus, Extras, etc... offer replacements, additions,
etc... beyond CentOS, which mirrors RHEL. So if you go
CentOS, you are getting the exact same software as RHEL.
> Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not
> to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch,
> and not on stability,
Not true, not true at all. Fedora Core is modeled after the
same Red Hat Linux model.
2 Months Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) release
2 Months Fedora Test (fka Red Hat Beta) release
2 Months Fedora Core (fka Red Hat Linux) release
========
6 Months
Development (fka Rawhide) is when the packages are released.
Test (fka Beta) is when the packages are integration tested.
Core (fka Linux) is when the integration testing reaches a threadhold.
The first 6-month release is always the PITA. Red Hat changes the GCC,
GLibC and/or kernel. This _breaks_ a lot of compatibility. They did
it with Red Hat Linux 4.0, then again with 5.0, then again with 6.0,
then again with 7.0 and once more with 8.0. 5.0 and 7.0 clearly had
the most complaints.
People are still talking about 5.0, which was due to the GLibC 2 change
back away from the "LibC" forks of GLibC 1 to GLibC 2. Every argument
against GLibC 2 was made, and Red Hat didn't care, because GLibC 2 was
much better for a variety of reasons. Same deal with 7.0 which was due
to the GCC 3 (2.96) adoption that forced everyone to start writing ANSI
standard C++. There were even some complaints from a non-Red Hat
employee working on GCC, when the entire plan for GCC 3 had been Cygnus'
well before Red Hat's acquisition.
Then every 2-4 Fedora Core releases or so, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux
release is forked, enters Beta, etc... This is how Red Hat Enterprise
Linux was developed from Red Hat Linux prior. There used to be a
"stable .2 community" that was then mirrored in the "enterprise." At
first, again, this was the "single product" model with the Red Hat Linux
6.2 "Enterprise" release -- RHL 6.2 + SLAs. But the success of SLES
changed Red Hat's marketing approach, they had to follow SuSE's lead.
2+2+2 = 6-month "Community" Linux
6+6+6 = 18-month "Enterprise" Linux
Again, the 2+2+2 model was not only proven in Red Hat Linux, it's not
only still used in Fedora Core, but as I mentioned, Red Hat Linux "hit"
the 6 months continually (give or take 2-3 weeks) -- over _14_ releases!
It's the proven development model. And the complaints of releases like
Fedora Core 2 and, now, Fedora Core 4 were _not_ unheard of in Red Hat
Linux.
> and it is definitely considered that the users are also testers.
Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to
a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before.
> I wouldn't call any of those beta. They are products, not
> test versions. I was using the "alpha test is done by the
> engineers, beta test is done by the users" distinction.
> Some might call it "acceptance test" rather than beta.
But how is Red Hat Linux 7.0 different than Fedora Core 2 in
approach?
> I don't want to be a tester, I want to be a user.
Then either:
1. Follow the 6-month Fedora Core releases with scrutiny, _or_
2. Consider the 18-month RHEL releases
This is _no_ different in Fedora Core than was with Red Hat Linux prior.
My only complaint continues to be the lack of revisions, but that
started with Red Hat Linux 9, not Fedora Core. Same thing with the 1
year of support, started with Red Hat Linux 7.3, not Fedora Core.
Of course, there is _still_ Fedora Legacy that is pumping out updates
for Red Hat Linux 7.3. There are no guarantees of anything when you get
it for no cost. Everything costs, be it in donation of time to people
in CentOS, or otherwise.
> AFAICT, every release of FC is, and is intended to be, a beta
> test.
Then by the same definition, so was Red Hat Linux.
If Fedora Core is "worse" than Red Hat Linux, then the quality of Red
Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will suffer as well.
Some _have_ complained that RHEL 4 has gone down from RHEL 3.
But then again, RHEL 3 did improve over RHEL 2.1.
Now why is that?
It really has more to do with the fact that the 2.4 kernel, GCC 3 and
other components were immature with RHL7.2-7.3/RHEL2.1, but more mature
with RHL9-FC1/RHEL3. Same deal now with FC3/RHEL4, 2.6 kernel and newer
GCC is not as mature, but it looks like FC5/RHEL5 will be a more stable
2.6 kernel and a better GCC 4.
Red Hat has its 2+2+2 -> 6+6+6 cycle.
The quality of RHEL is dependent on FC, just like RHL prior.
RHEL offers many benefits over FC, just like RHL prior.
Nothing is changed but names and lack of certified apps.
Other than RHL 6.2 "E", Red Hat _never_ offered SLAs on RHL.
And there was _never_ an official support policy on RHL, and only
about a year or so (basically the "last .2 until the next .2") was
followed until RHL7 -- which prompted Red Hat to make a "formal policy"
later on, and only 1 year.
> I found that FC3 was unable to install on a machine last Sunday.
> It apparently is completely unable to deal with a disc which
> has an existing partition, and unallocated space. That does
> not seem reasonable for an installer.
You'll find the _same_ Anaconda installer in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4). ;->
At this point, I don't know if it's worth saying anything, because you
are going to believe and assert what you want.
I'm not saying that to enfuriate you. I'm just saying that because
you'll probably run into the same issues again, and then just blame
CentOS 4 too.
> That's pretty much been true in the industry. Some of us
> remember MSDOS 4.0 and the revision to 4.1 which came out
> less than six (6) months later.
Red Hat has almost _always_ led the adoption of new GCC, GLibC and
kernel releases. But in the Red Hat Linux era before Red Hat Linux 9,
they gave us some "warning" that a ".0" release was out. Anytime you
change something, you break lots of things.
But at least the only people who complained are the ones who didn't
understand the .0-.1-.2 model of the 6-6-6 month cycle.
Now with Fedora Core, you "have to do your homework" to discover when
GCC, GLibC and kernel changes are made. I do that, and even have a
_full_history_ going back Red Hat Linux 4.0 -- 20 revisions! According
to your "epoch" viewpoint, that means that there have been 20 betas,
because with exception of RHL9->FC1, Red Hat has continually made the 6
month mark.
> Really? I use this machine for my job, doing software development.
> I want something which works, not something that, for the
> most part, works. Not a criticism of FC in general, nor of
> FC3 in particular.
If you're doing software development, I'd almost push you towards
Gentoo. It all depends on what you are doing.
[ BTW, don't assume you're not talking to the Linux SME of a $30.5B
defense division who has to deal with development systems of the next-
generation defense systems. I know all about maintaining development
systems, making sure they are standardized, etc... ]
If you are looking for a system where the updates are _minimal_, meaning
fixes are backported instead of just replaced with newer versions, then
you want an "enterprise" distribution like RHEL or SLES.
If you are looking for a system where the updates are regular, bringing
new features, then you want something like Fedora Core or, depending on
how "current" you want things, Gentoo.
When I need "fluid" system changes during leading-edge R&D cycles, I'm
finding Gentoo is best. When I need "static" system changes when I'm
providing a development platform to, say, the USAF for production
systems that have already been developed, then I'm definitely getting
them a Red Hat Desktop (RHEL WS in volume license) license/subscription.
> I am aware of that. That is the reason I stated it. My
> presumption (and it *is* a presumption) is that it would
> be much easier to "upgrade" (if that is what it is) from
> the Fedora Core Project to RHEL than to some other package.
Not really. You can't upgrade SuSE Linux to SuSE Enterprise Linux
Server either. It's really more about lack of packages in the latter,
removed components, etc... It's a nightmare.
> My point exactly. FC is a sort of pre-QA "release".
Not true.
Every package starts with Development fka Rawhide.
Then it moves to Test.
In many cases, packages are adopted by RHEL and FC simultaneously.
> I'd like something a little more "post-QA"
Then you want RHEL (or CentOS). RHEL is the most anal on moving in
changes, far more than FC. It's not to say that FC is "less tested,"
there's just no guarantee of "maturity."
If you want, you can _easily_ "hold back" FC changes to get the same.
When I do training, one thing I specialize in is "configuration
management" of Fedora Core in comparison to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
We go through release dates of Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux
packages -- and see over 80% are the same version and date.
> and also changing much less frequently.
The key here is how they change.
RHEL will backport more to older versions, whereas Fedora Core _might_
use the newer version. But in many cases (almost all), the _exact_ same
package in Fedora Core goes to RHEL -- sometimes simultaneously (for a
serious vunerability).
> I'd like something which I could run for a couple of years before
> feeling an urge to update. If even then.
Well, I've still got Red Hat Linux 7.3 systems getting updates from
Fedora Legacy. It all depends on what you trust.
> We'll see. I am somewhat resistant to "churn". I want a stable
> development environment more than I want the latest shinyest
> bugs.
Then you can either run the current, most mature version of Fedora Core,
such as Fedora Core 3. Or you can run CentOS. I'd say CentOS, but I
don't know what kind of development you are doing (I might even push you
towards Gentoo, depending).
But to base it on Fedora Core 2 would be just as bad as Red Hat Linux
5.0 and Red Hat Linux 7.0 -- because that's _exactly_ what Fedora Core 2
was like. It's the first ".0" of an +2 version -- major, major changes,
just like Red Hat Linux 5.0 was over Red Hat Linux 4.x, and Red Hat
Linux 7.0 over Red Hat Linux 6.x. Red Hat Linux 6.x was more
evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 5.x, and Red Hat Linux 8.0, 9 and Fedora
Core 1 were more evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 7.x.
It's really all about the history, and the changes in Fedora Core 2 were
not a surprise at all.
> Not that I claim that FC is buggy. There are some show-
> stoppers for me in re. FC4.
Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora
Core 3.
> SELinux is part of it.
SELinux is in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4), based on the work in Fedora Core 2
and 3.
SELinux is not in RHEL 3 (and CentOS 3), because they are based on the
work of Red Hat Linux 9 and Fedora Core 1.
> Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is
> disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall.
??? This has nothing to do with Fedora Core.
Again, I will warn you, if you are making such complaints about Fedora
Core, you're not going to find much more in Red Hat Enterprise Linux
either (which CentOS is based on).
> If I want to "play" with a different version, I'll burn Knoppix
> or Kanotix and fiddle. But not with my development machine, thanks.
I'm still scratching my head.
Understand I would be _more_than_happy_ to see you come over to CentOS.
But what I'm afraid of, based on your above comments, is that the same
complaints you have on Fedora Core will follow you to CentOS too.
So all you will accomplish is a wipe and new install of CentOS 4, only
to be disappointed. Which is why I said you might want to try an "yum
upgrade" to Fedora Core 3 first.
> I had hoped that might be the case. But on the FC echo, I was
> warned away from that. I was strongly advised to backup, clean
> the disc, and re-install from scratch, or consequences too
> terrible to contemplate might happen. Because it's a totally
> different thing.
No, I meant to administer/support it.
You _will_ probably want to re-install.
RHEL and RHL (now FC) have completely different priorities.
> Erm? What do you mean by "issues"?
> In what way is CentOS a subset of FC2 or FC3?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for the original Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E",
has always been a more static, "subset" of support from Fedora Core,
just like Red Hat Linux prior. Much of it is due to locale support,
but the main driver is the "what we ship, we support" attitude of
Red Hat.
With guaranteed SLAs as slow as 4 hours, RHEL is designed to be as
minimal as possible.
CentOS does have it's CentOS Plus and Extras repositories, and there are
other helpful repositories like DAG -- but if you're complaining about
installer problems with FC3, then you're in for a world of issues if you
try to upgrade FC2 to CentOS 4.
Which is why I said that you might try Fedora Core 3 first from either
the CD (recommended), or "yum upgrade" first.
> I didn't do an "everything" install of FC2. I did include several of the
> development packages, and the OpenOffice package, along with
> both GNOME and KDE. So far, I've only used GNOME on this machine,
> though I have used KDE on a Debian release.
> I'd rather not run SELinux at all. I spent a few tens of messages
> on why to run SELinux, and the upshot of it was that the answer
> was "Because it is there."
You can disable it.
It's in CentOS 4 as well, because it's based on FC2/3.
> I also didn't like the fact that the FC4 install I did on Sunday
> (on a machine I built up just for the purpose of experimenting
> with upgrading from FC2) put my single disc into a virtual volume
> without even asking.
Use the "expert" mode during install.
It is listed in the boot options pages.
Also note that Fedora Core 4 is clearly more of a ".0" early adopters /
"we changes some things" release. Not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 2
was, but I'd recommend an upgrade to Fedora Core 3 right now.
> Most of the "extra" features seem not to be something I have
> much desire for. The extra security especially is mostly useless
> for my desktop which sits behind a router firewall, and nothing
> else connected to the "lan" side. I understand the need for
> such types of things in servers, especially those with external
> connections which are open, but my single-user deskto system
> has much more relaxed requirements.
> So, what issues do I need to investigate?
Well, I've made my recommendations and I'm sure people will just view me
as a "Fedora apologist." I'm just trying to avoid you coming to CentOS
and having the same complaints (possibly more).
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman
