Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> said: > 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? Says history. Fedora extended-support releases were tried and failed. > > 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. It is the opinion of many professional system adminstrators. > I have had no problem deploying Fedora and using Fedora in critical > infrastructural in similar fashion as Andy wrote on his blog [1] Creating throw-away instances and replacing them every 6 months may be okay for the rapid-development web designers, but most real system adminstrators have more than enough work to do than to re-test their application stack for new deployments every 6 months. I build servers to last for years so that I don't have to touch them again for a long time. -- Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
