Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Rahul Sundaram escribió:
Why?
That has been the attitude from quite a bit of people, starting by the
devs, Red Hat and others. I don't mean that Fedora is a bad system (by
any means!! totally opposite!) it is an excellent home OS and home
server where tasks are less critical, and due to the amount of updates
released for it, it is a great Desktop system, but a lousy server for
mission critical and key components on production servers (due to
downtimes related to the amount of updates). I fought the idea of Fedora
being relegated at first, but I've grown to understand why that is so...
Maybe, and just maybe, we should market Fedora as an excellent home OS
alternative (much more reliable than many others, and gives a LOT of
home users a truly FREE [as in "gratis" and "liberty"] alternative
platform). I'm sure Fedora would make also a GREAT corporate Workstation
and Desktop OS, but due to its short life-cycle, it is kind of difficult
keeping up, plus the overhead on IT staff for massive upgrades to the
next version. Even with the extended life-expectancy of a Fedora system
(IIRC it is now 13 months from release) it is still too short for a
company with more than 50 desktops to maintain and migrate every 13
months, it'd add too much of an overhead for the IT staff.
I had deployed over 100 desktops in Fedora working for my previous
company and they are happy using it. Me and many other colleagues and
various organizations and individuals are relying on Fedora for their
day to day needs which by my definition are production boxes. You are
just jumping to conclusions.
. The point was in
regards to the community and the branches, and how "stable" Debian
remains, compared to Fedora (i.e. longer release cycle for the "stable"
tree, which is why [amongst other things] it is so widely deployed in
servers), which is the main argument for a lot of "production
environments" to reject Fedora in favor for RHEL or CentOS or another
more "stable" distro, in the understanding here that by "stable" I mean
a slower paced evolution and longer product life.
You mean robust here. However people do install and prefer a Linux box
with faster updates for certain types of servers and systems. In FUDCon
Boston a end user was arguing passionately that Fedora is what he
preferred to install in his server boxes due to his unique needs in HPC
(High Performance Clustering) environment.
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. I remember reading this interview
back in the day, and I know that Max is working hard in trying to erase
the "stigmas" of Fedora, and believe me, I *do* share his points...
Until the real world steps in... But as he himself says, nothing is set
in stone in Fedora, and it will evolve, maybe it will do so that it may
even be embraced in production environments (and I do believe it has
what it takes to do so)... the question is "Do the people responsible of
decision making for such environments agree?"
It is not our decision and unless we really know all the various
factors, we would not able to make any guesses on whether it is a
responsible decision or not. Your generalized claim
is just not true in many cases.
Our job is to produce the best possible system within the constraints of
our time and resources to meet our objectives. Not to be judgmental
about how it is being used or deployed.
Rahul
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
