fre, 28 07 2006 kl. 11:39 -0400, skrev Jesse Keating: > Ew. Why in gods name would you base 'mission critical' systems on Fedora? > Easier security updates? What? In fedora its more often than not the latest > upstream version to fix a flaw, not a backport. Life span is very quick, > systems will become unmaintained in just a few years time. > > Those firms would have been much better off using a (free) enterprise minded > distribution. Backported fixes, low churn, 5+ years of maintenance, etc... > > Frankly these really aren't the target users of Fedora, and they probably > should move to another distribution. Fedora doesn't need world dominance, we > don't need every user. Trying to cater to them all is the path to insanity. Whenever I hear the words mission critical something inside my brain tells me that unless this is a small server I can afford to fix issue on myself (time is money), I should buy support from Red Hat. If you can't afford that to ensure your mission critical data then it's probably not all that critical anyways or your time isn't valuable. Regardless we have offering for all levels, Fedora if you want high churn, the lastest and greatest while retaining good stability. CentOS for the cheap enterprise level deployment without the need for support and RHEL if you really want a complete enterprise system (OS and services). The beauty of Fedora is that it's a very good distribution to adjust to different needs, it forms the basis of anything from the really high end RHEL type distributions, down to ressource constrained deployments like OLPC. We do need world domination but we get it through versatility. - David Nielsen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
