RE: RH rips again Was: extend EOL for Red Hat Linux 9?

From: Mike Bartman (omni_at_omniphile.com)
Date: 04/20/04

  • Next message: Travis Miller: "RE: swat?" 
    Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:27:14 -0400
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>, For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>

    At 02:02 PM 4/17/04 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
    >At 12:40 4/16/2004, you wrote:
    >>I'm not a linux developer, and I need my system to work at all times, so
    >>Fedora doesn't seem to be a good option either...though I'm not 100%
    >>convinced of that yet, which is why I signed up for this list. Need more
    >>info.
    >
    >I don't see why you feel that. I use Fedora in exactly the same way I used
    >Red Hat Linux before it... all the time. My notebook runs Fedora with
    >servers and all sorts of programs, and FC1 has been extremely stable and
    >robust since it came out. I have had no... *zero*... problems with it.

    That's good to hear. Thanks. I need DNS, NTP, SMTP, FTP, HTML, XDM, and
    Telnet support along with some sort of firewall (ipchains for instance).
    Anything else is going to be for maintaining those, and learning more about
    Linux admin and programming. RHL 7.3 had all that...it's looking like FC-1
    does too (please tell me if not! :-)

    The other critical need is for something like RHN to keep the above updated
    more or less automatically. I didn't think Fedora had that, but after
    reading some of the threads here, it looks like it does...just not from the
    same sites (the thread with the pointer to the mirror sites was very
    useful, thanks!). With RHN I'd get an e-mail saying there was some sort of
    problem and to run up2date to get the patch. I'm signed up for the
    Fedora-announce list, so that should take care of the notification part,
    and if running up2date (or yum) when that happens will get and install the
    fixes, I'm all set (once I get and install FC-1 anyway :-)

    >>RH seems to think that the only two options are "workstation" and "server".
    >
    >In the Enterprise, that is pretty much true. Which is what RHEL is designed
    >for.

    Right, but it's a big change from RHL 7.3 Pro, which came with both.
    Neither of RH's current offerings does the job I need done. One is missing
    the server support, the other is missing the workstation support. Even if
    I was willing to pay them what they are asking (possible for the
    workstation price, not for the server price), they aren't selling what I
    need anymore.

    I don't need 24x7 support either...with access to patches, and occasional
    boxed upgrades, I've been happy for several years now. When I needed to
    configure something, I searched man, HOWTOs, or the net for the info I
    needed, or bought a book (Sendmail from O'Reily for example). I've never
    called RH, even during the periods where I had free install support right
    after upgrading. I was almost pure profit for them. Ah well.

    >>Fedora seems (correct me if I'm wrong please...) to be a development
    >>system...a continuous beta release. Something that will change all the
    >>time, require constant attention, and may be broken some percentage of the
    >>time. [...]
    >
    >Thank God, your perception is incorrect. Fedora attempts to be as stable as
    >possible. The only thing that changed is that Red Hat Linux used to have
    >problems because individuals wanted newer software (2.6 kernel, GNOME 2.4)
    >released more quickly, and corporations were screaming that they wanted
    >products to stay still/constant/unchanged for longer. So now RHEL stays
    >still longer and Fedora attempts to integrate newer technology more quickly.

    I'm with the corporations...if it's working, I'm happy. I don't need to be
    on the bleeding edge with my LAN server.

    I've got another machine I use to play games on (Win2K), that has removable
    HDs, and a spare one to play with Linux. I just swap HDs to switch OSs
    (removable HD trays are about $15 at the local computer shows...install
    them like a HD, then stuff whatever HD you like into the removable
    part...makes backups really easy and fast too, with no "open file"
    problems...I use System Commander's partition copy to duplicate my working
    drive on the backup one. You get a "hot spare" that way too, and HD is
    cheaper than a pile of tapes anyway). It has SuSi linux on it at the
    moment, but I think it's going to be getting wiped and have Fedora put on
    it. If that works out, and I can configure it just like my LAN server,
    I'll swap it in for the LAN server while I do it again with the LAN server
    machine. That should let me test things, and limit downtime while I build
    and configure the real server. If the test shows that the system stays up,
    does what I need done, and can update as easily as RHL with RHN, I'll be
    happy and will switch over for good.

    The comments made here have helped reassure me that FC-1 is stable...though
    all the "I can't get xxx to work...help?" messages are a bit daunting. I
    just try to remember that the same thing happens with every complex piece
    of software, and in most cases I've never seen most of the problems when I
    ran the very same stuff. They are user error, or dependent on strange
    hardware combos, or flakey hardware, or whatever, in most cases. Real
    problems with the software itself seem to generate megabytes of "me too!"
    posts in a hurry, and I haven't seen that here yet.

    >>Can someone who isn't a linux guru set up and maintain
    >>a Fedora system as easily as doing the same thing with RHL?
    >
    >Yes. In fact, more easily, since the installer and other things have
    >improved a great deal.

    Ok, I'm convinced...at least enough to download (or order CDs) and give it
    a try. Thanks for the reassurance, and info...both you and everyone else
    who has responded. I appreciate it! If you ever have any OpenVMS
    questions, feel free to send them my way! ;-)

    >>How do I get
    >>from my current working RHL 7.3 system to the Fedora system? Can I just
    >>upgrade? Or is this a "new build from scratch" situation?
    >
    >You can upgrade. Having said that, going from 7.3 to Fedora is a very big
    >leap of three full versions (7 -> 8 -> 9 -> FC1), so I would prefer to
    >reinstall from scratch.

    Yeah, understood. I did that when I went from RHL 5.2 to 6.2, and again to
    get to 7.1. 7.3 was an upgrade. It's a little bit of a hassle, but I can
    handle it...main trick is to keep the old partitions around in case I
    forgot to save any important config info on floppy disk or paper.

    >>I don't mind running up2date frequently, but I don't want to have to get
    >>into it more than that, except very rarely, and only then for educational
    >>purposes. Basically I want something that works like RHL with RHN...but RH
    >>isn't interested in selling that to me anymore.
    >
    >No, they won't *sell* it to you any more. It is now *only* available for
    >free. :-)

    I'm starting to see that...they didn't do a very good job of communicating
    that if that's the way it is. They made it sound like it was RHEL or a
    beta development environment...neither of which is a good choice for
    someone with my situation. It's sounding like Fedora Core 1 is where I
    should be, and that the beta environment is the FC-2 folks and Secure Linux
    testers (that sounds interesting...for later on :-).

    Thanks again for the info! I'll give it a try and see how it goes.

    -- Mike Bartman

    "In the representative system, the reason for everything must publicly
    appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a
    necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest
    because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it
    with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of
    following what in other governments are called 'leaders'."

                                    -- Tom Paine, _Rights of Man_ (1791-92) 

    -- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
  • Next message: Travis Miller: "RE: swat?"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: RH rips again Was: extend EOL for Red Hat Linux 9?
      ... I use Fedora in exactly the same way I used ... Red Hat Linux before it... ... Which is what RHEL is designed ... >a Fedora system as easily as doing the same thing with RHL? ...
      (Fedora)
    • help please remove me from the list.
      ... Re: Web Browsers ... No network after upgrade to Fedora 2 ... We are using a router but linux has so many browsers that it by passes the proxy server that I hav set using squid. ... >>I'm using the one from jpackage and I had to install the webapps>>seperately. ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 4, Issue 259
      ... > One issue I am having involves the ggz installation. ... There could be lots of reasons for a Linux box not to boot into ... > not a Fedora issue, it's a 2.6 issue which SuSE and Mandrake also has. ... > Can a Linux machine route tcp/ip data from a modem link to a local net ...
      (Fedora)
    • Re: Re: Deploring *nix Philosophy
      ... > you could set it so users could open and close the ppp interface at will. ... > initially invest in a fedora bible of sorts. ... > bring the complexity or power of the OS down to the level of a windows ... > sure that bringing Linux down to the level of windows home setup just to ...
      (Fedora)
    • RE: Some thoughts for the future
      ... > things that may be cool for the future, not just for Fedora but Linux ... > * How about the ability to install via SRPMS for the specific CPU ... Fedora needs a cooler looking GUI. ... up with is about a 7 step process to get a windows (active directory) ...
      (Fedora)