Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)

From: Ivan Marsh (annoyed_at_you.now)
Date: 09/28/05

  • Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux" 
    Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:36:50 -0500

    On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:39:09 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote:

    > Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:39:47 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:48:55 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >>>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:45:44 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote:
    >>>>>P Ruetz wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I have been trying to put Linux on my new Dell 9100. Redhat 9 did
    >>>>>>not work because of the USB only keyboard and mouse (or maybe I
    >>>>>>could get it to work if I were clever enough). FC 4 worked with the
    >>>>>>keyboard/mouse but not the network card. CentOS 4.1 worked much
    >>>>>>more smoothly. Everything seems to work on the first pass without
    >>>>>>kernel rebuilding.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>So my question is: Should I even bother with FC in the future or
    >>>>>>just stick with one of the Redhat clones (e.g. CentOS)?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I use Linux occasionally to build my software for Linux and Solaris
    >>>>>>(with a cross compiler). It is probably pretty obvious that I am no
    >>>>>>Linux expert, but can generally "scrape by" with some help.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Stick with CentOS - it's very stable; especially since you're doing
    >>>>>real work(tm)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>FC is RH's bleed edge stuff - Great for experimenting but not for
    >>>>>real work.
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm running FC on several production servers with no issues so I'm
    >>>>don't think I can agree with that statement.
    >>>
    >>>I'm using FC3 and FC4 on half a dozen machines without problems. There
    >>>are more packages available for Fedora then there are for RHEL systems
    >>>(although the FC packages will generally work on the similar RHEL
    >>>systems) so Fedora is a better choice for a knowledgeable end user.
    >>>However Fedora is always a moving target because it's a development
    >>>platform. When a new FC is released it's going to be crap, that's
    >>>guaranteed.
    >>
    >> Like I said... that hasn't been my experience.
    >
    > It all comes down to how you define "real work" I'm in the medical
    > applications business and must not only answer to our customers but also
    > the FDA. There's no way we could validate FC for ourselves as
    > development systems or for our customers. In this field you pick a
    > system and stick with it for as long as possible; i.e. many years.
    > (We're finally phasing out HP-UX 10.20!)
    >
    > We attempted to use RH7.3 but quickly realized after 1 year that we
    > couldn't support new HW. As SW development engineers we can't waste time
    > messing around with this month's release of FC. The OS is just a
    > commodity - no different than a keyboard, monitor or hard drive. It
    > better work out-of-the-box. We switched to RHEL3 and will stick with it
    > for a few years; i.e. until RH stops supporting what we need - probably
    > RHEL5 or 6.

    Yea... you've got the FAA... I've got the FCC.

    ...and like I said, I've experienced none of these issues. 

    -- 
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
   Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)
  • Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"