Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE
>>>> ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code,
>>>> that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I
>>>> guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New
>>>> Features! will have changed interfaces....
>> <snip>
>>> And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by
>>> breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux
>>> on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever.
>>> It "just works".
>>
>> Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's
<snip>
>> 10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of
>> gnome, and put KDE on....
>>
>> I want solid and stable.
>
> I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience
I guess you don't. Let's start out this way, by defining my use of the
word "fragile": this is where software is utterly dependent upon the
runtime environment, and on the versions of the executables and libraries
they use, and where a sub-release may carry a change in it that breaks the
damn thing, because they're using some experimental function (sorry,
"method"), or their stuff worked only because some error checking wasn't
enabled, and the data and code fell through and worked, and the new
version caught it and died.
> with LTS to make this relevant? If you are building stuff from source,
> the distribution packages are basically irrelevant - and in java the
> whole OS is mostly irrelevant. Fedora releases are rather clearly
Nope - the O/S and all the packages with it *are* the environment that I
refer to.
> alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for
production.
> bugfix/QA work to stabilize it. But ubuntu isn't like that - they don't
> push stuff out just to get testing for some later money making release,
> it is the best they can do in the first place with an emphasis on ease
> of installation and use. The LTS versions are even designed to do
> major-rev upgrades over the network - and it has worked on the machines
> where I've tried it.
Ok, I *only* heard of the desktop emphasis, and that's what I see on my
netbook remix. I have not heard of LTS before, or that it was intended for
servers. Still, if it has updates as frequently as my netbook does, that
would make me nervous about a production environment.
I'll stick with CentOS...oh, that's right, I should only make comments
like that on a CentOS list....
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
