I'd like to thank Dave and a few others for a good explanation of
the 4KSTACKS move. Anything that improves reliability for my server
apps is welcome.
I apologize for being less than tactful sometimes. If I'm critical
of RH, it's because I like Linux, Fedora and Red Hat and want to seem
them succeed. If I was commited to, say, Suse, FreeBSD or Open
Solaris, I'd be making waves on their mailing lists, not this one.
Some people are concerned that there's a lot of negative content on
this mailing list, and I think that's correct. We've seen arguments
that boil on for weeks without resolution. I think the problem,
however, is that there isn't a system in place to produce positive
propaganda for Linux and Fedora. Red Hat Magazine is pretty good:
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/
but
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/
is being updated less infrequently than it was and I wish that
http://www.kerneltrap.org/
had 3x has much content as it does. I went looking online for
information on 4KSTACKS, and by the limitations of current browsing and
searching interfaces, I found mostly people complaining about how
4KSTACKS broke this or that, and nothing that made it clear that
4KSTACKS has the real benefits that it does.
Fighting a headwind, some Sun employees write good documentation
for OpenSolaris in blog entries, such as
http://blogs.sun.com/mws/
Sun's blog aggregator incorporates a lot of material that's off topic:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/blogs/
but if it had some editorial effort, I could see it becoming a good
system that combines documentation at the user level, kernel developer
level, and technical-friendly marketing in one place.
LKML is great, but it's like drinking from a firehose for people
who have other job responsibilities. There's a lot that can be done to
cure the impedance mismatch between the information that's available and
the information that linux admins need.
Finally, there is an impedance mismatch between Fedora and RHEL --
the connection between them is more intimate than a lot of people
admit. I had bad experiences with RHEL 3 on an x86 and had a lot of
skepticism about the direction RH was going when the Fedora project
started. We was so impressed with FC 3 that we chose RHEL 4 for an
x86_64 server we brought online. If it hadn't been for Fedora, we
might have switched to a different distribution or OS.
(And yes, it's really a miracle that FC and RHEL are as good as
they are on a platform as new as x86_64!)
With better marketing, ISVs might take Fedora a little more
seriously and start testing products on it. We knew well in advance
that RHEL 4 was going to be based on FC 3 and ISVs could have had better
products qualified for RHEL 4 faster if they'd done beta testing against
FC 3. Framing the Fedora discussion from a "half full" rather than
"half empty" perspective could help with this.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
