On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote: > I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora > Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of > sense as a thing. Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at what the Fedora Server working group is coming up with? > To me what I would want of "Fedora Server" is simply a solid base OS > and a solid set of package I can install on top of that depending on > what I want each particular server to do - sometimes that will be > postgres, sometimes it will be mysql and apache, sometimes it will > be exim and spamassassin. And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not anything in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a thing". That leaves define release criteria -- let alone blockers. > The biggest reason for people preferring, say, Ubuntu over Fedora > for servers is probably not the existence of something called > "server" but rather the extended stable lifetime offered by LTS > releases. And that's on the table as a possibility, but it would take a lot of commitment from package maintainers. Another approach is to work on making upgrades less disruptive, so you don't need to fear the EOL -- just schedule an update and your stuff keeps working. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
