Horst H. von Brand wrote:
No, Fedora, legacy or not, is not good at maintaining stability. I'm
not surprised it didn't work and wouldn't expect it to work if
revived.
My impression too, but experimental data trumps that.
Do you have numbers for the bugs shipped in Fedora? Even the ones fixed
in subsequent updates? I've had too many update kernels that wouldn't
boot on hardware where the previous one ran fine.
What people actually do is run RHEL or Centos for their
actual work.
Depends on what "actual work" means...
My experience is with things like http://www.quote.com or
http://www.futuresource.com and their backend systems handling financial
data, but I mean anything that is expected to be up 24x7 for years.
Which leaves the question of how to get from one to the
other as you develop something new, then want to run it.
Move the SRPM over, rebuild on the target? Have done so several times, with
minimal fuss. Also moved SRPMs to Aurora (on SPARC64, Fedora-based), and
even ported SRPMs for stuff I couldn't find on Fedora from a variety of
other distributions. I also maintained locally old packages for stuff where
the newer one didn't work.
I'd expect anybody who used Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora for any length of time
have done so too...
Yes, that sometimes works, but if it is as easy as you say, why not just
do that with _everything_ on Fedora as its last update when the
corresponding enterprise version has been released?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
