Live Upgrade Special Interest Group

[Jonathan Dieter]

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 18:21 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
<snip>
> It is always sadly for me to hear the recommendations to not use Fedora 
> in production. At least it is not true! Secondary, it is very harmfully 
> for Fedora Project, and even for RHEL.
<snip>

I think it really depends on what you're looking for.  For our school, I
was running three FC4 (later upgraded to FC5 and then FC6) servers and
got quite frustrated with having to upgrade them every 6-12 months,
especially as there were a number of issues I ran into during the
upgrade process (i.e. conf files needing a slightly different format for
something like Samba or BIND; I honestly don't remember exact details).

I ended up switching them over to CentOS 5 when it came out and I'm
quite happy with it, especially because I'm getting much fewer updates
and therefore rarely needing to restart them (think kernel updates).

On the other hand, we switched all of our desktop systems (except three
or four) over to Linux during the summer and Fedora 7 was my
distribution of choice there.

I only have to get the setup perfect once, and then I'm able to image it
to all of our desktops.  That's something I can easily do every six
months, especially when the benefit is that the users get newer and
prettier software every six months.  I've even managed to get beryl
running by default on 20 of the newer computers.

All that to say that CentOS vs. Fedora really comes down to your needs.
I haven't found Fedora to be particularly buggy or anything, but I did
find it a pain to update it as often as I needed to for my servers.  On
the other hand, it's a perfect fit for my desktops.

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20071022/cd71a366/attachment.sig>