It turns out that 1000 seats at MIT are switching to Ubuntu from
Enterprise.
They will not be using LTS, because they expect to need more recent
hardware drivers.
They are switching to Ubuntu instead of Fedora even though they
expect there will be an annual OS update of Ubuntu required, the apt
package management system makes a lot of the work to switch from our
present tightly integrated OS + alternate versions of packages +
additional packages to alternate versions and additional packages
layered on a pre-installed system.
It is product focus, however that makes Ubuntu attractive to me and
many at MIT. With Fedora and Enterprise, the two choices are three
year old functionality, or bleeding edge functionality. Example: in
November Fedora 8 came out with important laptop power management
functionality, but it also shipped with a broken rewrite of
NetworkManager, and an alpha version of BIND. Fedora 6 shifted to
not getting any attention, and the clock to get off Fedora 7 started
EVEN BEFORE FEDORA 8 FUNCTIONALITY WAS STABLE!
With Ubuntu, a single common code base is taken care of by different
groups serving different clientele. Canonical Inc. will take money
from corporate customers who need help managing systems or getting
new functionality. Volunteers explore new functionality and move
forward on the process of producing open source solutions. At
particular points a particular version is flagged for longer term
support, but the primary focus is not on exploring new functionality,
or on back porting popular functionality to an ancient codebase
tailored to customers afraid of change. It is simply: Produce a
usable experience with a balance of stable code and new
functionality. What Fedora-based spin has this focus?
-Bill
----
William Cattey
Linux Platform Coordinator
MIT Information Services & Technology
N42-040M, 617-253-0140, wdc@xxxxxxx
http://web.mit.edu/wdc/www/
On Dec 24, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Dec 24, 2007 4:19 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I don't think Ubuntu LTS gives you the latest and greatest unless you
upgrade, does it?
I think that's the whole point.
Same with CentOS; although it might be supported longer then you are
going to use it, whenever you feel you want newer software you
upgrade
to the next release. Meanwhile, it's stable.
Correct - however security updates are backported to the "old"
versions of the software.
The Fedora Project moves in with EPEL, Extra Packages for Enterprise
Linux, perfectly suitable for a CentOS machine and with the same
release
and 'support' cycle.
Not entirely sure what you mean here. I think what was being called
for was a release whereby it's "supported" (with security updates,
etc) beyond the current 1 year, however perhaps not as much as the 7
years that RHEL is supported.
However, as Matthew said in the e-mail that came in as I was writing
this, there was little interest in Fedora Legacy when it existed.
What makes us think that there's more of a demand now? It's either
the short, bleeding edge release cycle of Fedora as we know it, or the
long release cycle of RHEL. Both serve different purposes.
-Jon
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
