On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's
just a Fedora that's been hardened and held to a certain level of
ABI/API compatibility.
Which is my point exactly instead of helping increasing the overall quality
of Fedora the infrastructure decide to run to another distribution.
RHEL != Fedora
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers!
Says who?
No one in their right mind runs any
rapid development distribution (not just Fedora) on critical
infrastructure.
That's your opinion and I'm sure many in the server sub-community
disagree with that statement.
I have had no problem deploying Fedora and using Fedora in critical
infrastructural in similar fashion as Andy wrote on his blog [1]
If you think Fedora should somehow transition into being a good
distribution for critical infrastructure, you'll have to propose some
radical changes to Fedora to make that happen.
I have already done so that request I filed a while back and is buried
in the locked board tracker
1.http://groveronline.com/2013/06/fedora-for-servers/
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
