[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fedora-legacy-list Digest, Vol 3, Issue 24



Point three of the Fedora objectives 
(http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives) says:

"3. Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the 
upstream packages. This includes updates; our default policy will be to
upgrade to new versions for security as well as for bugfix and new  
feature update releases of packages."

This is less conservative than a distribution designed to run for years 
performing a particular workload. The word "unstable" isn't mentioned in 
the objectives, but point one of the "non-objectives" is:

"1. Slow rate of change."

OTOH, point seven of the objectives is:

"7. Promote rapid adoption of new releases by maintaining easy 
upgradeability, with minimal disturbances to configuration changes."

I can attest that the FC1-FC2 upgrade worked extremely well for me. 
I had to turn off acpi because of my old SMP hardware, but other than that 
change to grub.conf, I made no configuration changes at all, and it Just 
Worked(tm). For the leap in kernel technology the upgrade represented, I 
think that's remarkable.

Businesses I have knowledge of have shied away from Fedora Core because of 
the rapid rate of change issue. In my opinion, folks who have taken the 
plunge with FC1 on production machines really need to seriously consider 
upgrading to FC2. This is in line with the objectives quoted above. Red 
Hat and the volunteers at the Fedora project seem to have tried awfully 
hard to make that as smooth as possible. (c.f. *not turning on SELinux by 
default.)

On Thu, 20 May 2004, Marc Deslauriers wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 17:09, Jonathan Crowe wrote:
> > Even though it would be nice to not have to upgrade the FC1 machines 
> > until FC2 has been around for a while (and through several rounds of bug 
> > fixes), they are, after all, not servers.
> > 
> > Even through it has been solid for me on the desktop, when it came out 
> > FC1 was billed as an unstable release.   I suspect that for the most 
> > part people have not installed it on servers.
> 
> Unstable release?
> 
> I know a _bunch_ of people running FC1 on servers depending on FL to get
> patches out when RH stops.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
> 
> 

-- 
Howard Owen                      "Even if you are on the right
EGBOK Consultants                 track, you'll get run over if you
hbo egbok com    +1-650-218-2216  just sit there." - Will Rogers



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]