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

Re: [Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Dmitry Butskoy <buc odusz so-cdu ru> wrote:

> The problem was at an initial point, when Fedora was considered "for
> enthusiasts only". A lot of previous "RedHat Linux enthusiasts" just switch
> to CentOS (and similar RHEL-based systems), no more using Fedora, because
> "it is marked as a non-for-production system even by its creators".

Well, in all fairness, Fedora's stated goal is to advance the state of
free software. You get that by being bleeding-edge. Unfortunately,
being bleeding edge also means not being suitable for production
environments - these are two fundamentally incompatible goals. This is
why Red Hat Linux split into two - Fedora and RHEL. RHEL is a
derivative distribution of Fedora.

> As a result, the amount of Fedora-testers in real production environments
> significantly decreases. Fedora development seems to be focused on Desktop
> and some conseptual things now, rather than a real "production" life.

There's plenty of stuff going into Fedora aimed at production systems.
Take for example FreeIPA for one. It started life in Fedora quite a
while back, and is now Red Hat Enterprise IPA. That's just one
example. Others are:

Tickless kernel (I'd bet good money we'll be seeing it in RHEL6)

We're also working on getting Spacewalk into Fedora, which is neither
aimed at desktop users nor a "conceptual" thing. Fedora exists to
foster innovation, with this mission sometimes comes breakage. We
simply want to prepare folks for that.;

> Perhaps some marketing people assume that "production" implies the purchase
> of RHEL and commercial support, rather than trying to use some
> free-of-charge system, because such a system should be unstable for
> production environment. But people do not want to pay and they use CentOS
> instead..

That's fine.  The problem is not "marketing" that Fedora is viewed as
unstable for production use (and let me clarify the word production
here - something that you need up 24/7/365), it's technical. As I
stated before, the stated goals of Fedora are incompatible with
production use as I have defined it.
> This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself. Guess,
> how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest "stable"
> Fedora release? Maybe some previois release? How many key people work under

Not many, they are mostly RHEL (actually none that I personally know
of, but I think that the systems that create livecd's have to be if
I'm not mistaken), for exactly the reasons stated before.

> Fedora Desktop "all the time"? (Maybe RedHat employees of them are compelled
> to use RHEL Desktop in basic working hours?)

I'm not a Red Hat employee, but I'm pretty sure that they aren't
"compelled" to do anything. And lots of developers that I know run
rawhide all the time. A quick rundown of my machines at home:

Main desktop: Fedora 8

Main laptop: Fedora 9

Testing laptop: rawhide du jour

VM server: RHEL5.2 (may change this to F9 and kvm in the near future),
experiencing some weird Xen issues relating to Fedora testing.

DNS/DHCP: CentOS 4.6

VM's - depends on what they do :)

> And finally, when you will discover the actual situation, ask yourself --
> why Brasilian should use Fedora (and Fedora-based RHEL), when even Fedora's
> fathers do not use it for anything real?

Define "anything real". Of course it's used for real stuff. I'm
writing this on my F9 laptop right now.

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