On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 08:36 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
Not Fedora exactly (it's the f9a), but yum has conspired with rpm
against me to remove every working kernel. yum ignored how many kernels
I wanted to keep, and (apparently) upgraded (as opposed to installed)
the kernel.
It _could_ happen in Fedora, to anyone who had just one kernel (eg a new
install).
Yes, and that's why I use a VM to install and test the new releases. If
it completely fries the VM, I'm only out a few minutes time.
> Having a VM running a server in this environment may not be the
absolute
> best practice, but it's certainly feasible.
That's not the point I was speaking about. Running a VM _under Fedora_
is. A VM under CentOS or RHEL is altogether different. RHEL/CentOS is
less likely to break with a new update, and since it presents
conservative "hardware" to the guest, Fedora is less likely to break too.
What can I say? I do have multiple machines, and have dedicated
servers, and I want something with a long lifecycle for those servers
doing fairly standard things, like dns, http, imap, samba, etc. At the
same time, I like to keep tabs on fairly state-of-the-art developments
so that I can get a good idea about where my own development efforts
should go. I have the luxury of multiple machines. If I didn't,
running a VM with Fedora on the desktop and Centos as the guest would be
a likely choice. I have some hardware (a tv capture card, for one) that
isn't implemented in virtualized hardware. FWIW, I've had pretty good
success running QEMU-KVM out of rawhide with multiple guest OSes. If I
relied on the version available in RHEL or Centos, I wouldn't be nearly
as happy. In the case of QEMU/KVM, the bleeding edge stuff is working
better. Of course, that's just my experience, and I guess that it's
possible that I've been fantastically lucky, but I don't think so.
Dave