Re: yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

[John McBride <jmcbride ccis com>]

Daniel Stonier wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:38:45 -0700, John McBride <jmcbride ccis com> wrote:
>
> > The reason I ask is more and more people seem to be saying "fedora is  
> > the equivalent of debian unstable"...but it seems to me that fedora 
> > was  portrayed as a usable desktop/server system when the project was 
> > started.
> >
> > If this is not considered "reasonably stable software" and the only  
> > choice is RHEL, well, I don't like it. I think that's an awfully 
> > large  gap to fill.
>
>
> Im certainly not sure of all the details, but I imagine a seamlessly  
> working
> updatable is a big step to run flawlessly. Maybe there's issues with  
> getting
> this working.

It could well be difficult. But what's the goal for Linux? To just 
upgrade packages and add some new stuff occasionally?

After all, they must have relased a dozen kernels and a slew of system 
.so's and that all kept on chugging.

I suspect it is as I feared. The rules appear to have changed (fedora 
was originally portrayed as being somewhat stable, but over time more 
posts are saying it's not suitable for production, only experimentation 
stuff or home use).

This is okay and all, but it leaves me in a tough spot. I'm gonna take 
some hits for migrating a bunch of people off RH 8/9 6 mos. ago and now 
this product appears to be marketed strictly for experimentation.

I've tried Suse, Slack, Debian, Mandrake...and all had far more problems 
than Fedora, in my experience.

> There's also the philosophy of keeping up with the Jones'. I'm not really
> fussed on upgrading every six months, but is there a need? 

Yes, for security updates and new features. I've heard a lot of new 
software is not going to be ported to fc1, only fc2.

Well, to me the gap is too big. The old model was perfect for me. I 
could run out every year or so and buy a supported CD, get updates, 
etc...for a few years, or move to another version, and the company was 
standing firmly behind the product. Now it's "enterprise or go 
elsewhere, this is an experimental distro". Really, it didn't seem to be 
portrayed this way when fedora was starting out.

It's like Goldilocks...this ones too hot, this ones too cold, and the 
one that was just right is gone.

Not trying to dictate to anyone, just curious if there is a better way 
to do things.

RedHat 2004 anyone, coming to a shelf near you?