I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice. Mike.
I always update to the latest version to come out. AFAIK FC6 is very stable - probably more so than the development version of FC7.
On 28/02/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED m_d_berger_1900@yahoo.com wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice. Mike.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice. Mike.
You can view the schedule for dates and decide if going with FC6 or waiting is best for you.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/7/Schedule
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:02:37PM -0500, Jim Cornette wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
You can view the schedule for dates and decide if going with FC6 or waiting is best for you. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/7/Schedule
But be aware that if you don't like to upgrade very often, Fedora is not the distribution for you. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for almost a decade.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:12:45 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
[...]
But be aware that if you don't like to upgrade very often, Fedora is not the distribution for you. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for almost a decade. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ Boston University Linux ------> http://linux.bu.edu/
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it? I suppose I should ask them.
I am happy to know there is an alternative in case of unforeseen changes in policy by the "the prominent ...", but at this point I see no reason to switch.
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
Thanks for your comments. Mike.
Around 10:30pm on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 (UK time), Mike - EMAIL IGNORED scrawled:
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
In my experience the updates to a new version are too frequent for servers, which take to much effort to reinstall that often. So I run CentOS on my servers, but FC on workstations, which are easier to reinstall.
I would also argue that if the servers are of critical importance, FC is to risky as inevitably its cutting edge means more chance of failure, and a more stable platform is safer.
Steve
Thanks for your comments. Mike.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it? I suppose I should ask them.
From what I remember, there were some trademark problems with them
using the name, and they were asked to remove the references on the website and in the distribution as well. One downside of trademarks is that is you don't defend them, they can become generic terms instead of trademarks. You run into problems if you try to selectively protect your trademark.
Mikkel
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:30:56PM -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
Interesting. I took a quick look at the site. I am amused by their repeated reference to "the prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor". Who might that be and why not say it? I suppose I should ask them.
They don't say it because they're extra-careful about not referencing Red Hat trademarks.
I am happy to know there is an alternative in case of unforeseen changes in policy by the "the prominent ...", but at this point I see no reason to switch.
What is downside of staying with FC and only occasionally updating?
You won't get any bugfixes. Any problems you have won't really be considered.
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
What you want to do is outside the design goals of Fedora. If you don't want to update frequently, but want to stay in the Fedora "family", CentOS is exactly for you.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 19:43:02 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work to be worthwhile.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:51:23PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work to be worthwhile.
You also have to not ever use network client software. For example, the mozilla package in FC4, and everything linked against it, is high risk.
It may not happen immediately, and I'm sure we'll get a half-dozen anecdotes of the "hasn't happen to me" variety, but overall, it's a near-certainty.
If you wanted Fedora to be something else, you should have worked on Fedora Legacy. As it is, that's dead. So, if you want to not update frequently, use a distribution that's designed with a long lifespan.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 20:00:26 -0500, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 06:51:23PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
It isn't that bad. If you block inbound connections by default and do your own updates of services that are accessible from the network, and don't have any untrusted local users, you are fairly safe. If you are only going to have a couple network services available, it might be enough less work to be worthwhile.
You also have to not ever use network client software. For example, the mozilla package in FC4, and everything linked against it, is high risk.
Yes, I should have mentioned you need to watch your web browser, email and news clients. However, since people generally only use one client in each category this doesn't add a lot of work.
It may not happen immediately, and I'm sure we'll get a half-dozen anecdotes of the "hasn't happen to me" variety, but overall, it's a near-certainty.
I don't think the risk is that much different than getting updates from Fedora. The key packages are getting updated either way.
If you wanted Fedora to be something else, you should have worked on Fedora Legacy. As it is, that's dead. So, if you want to not update frequently, use a distribution that's designed with a long lifespan.
That's good general advice. However, that doesn't mean there are exceptional cases where people could use Fedora out of support without a lot of effort and without a big difference in risk of getting their machine hacked.
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:43:02 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
[...]
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
[...]
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote. I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything, gets through.
Mike.
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 20:37 -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote. I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything, gets through.
It only takes one to give you nightmares.
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:52:54 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 20:37 -0500, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote. I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything, gets through.
It only takes one to give you nightmares.
[...]
top: up 374 days Mike.
Mike:
I have a httpd, sshd, and ncftpd. I use iptables with very tight parameters, including a complex libipq filter I wrote. I am attacked all the time, but I don't think much, if anything, gets through.
Tim:
It only takes one to give you nightmares.
Mike:
top: up 374 days
Though what does that prove? Getting compromised doesn't have to change your uptime. You could be owned for any amount of that time, but never know it. I wouldn't tout an uptime, in itself, as an indication of okayness. If anything, an uptime of that length on Linux indicates that you haven't updated a kernel in a long time, which *may* not be a good thing.
You said you didn't think much or anything had got through (i.e. you don't know, for sure), which was my point (that just one breakthrough is a problem).
Matthew Miller wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
I don't think the danger is that great.
In any case, are you saying this is less likely to occur if you are running CentOS than Fedora? Why?
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
If you are connected to the internet in any way, your machine will get hacked and you will become part of a botnet serving spam or worse. This is pretty much an inevitability.
I don't think the danger is that great.
In any case, are you saying this is less likely to occur if you are running CentOS than Fedora?
On CentOS, security and bug fixes are suppled for many years for each release. Yum update continues to be all you need to do as long as you are happy with the application versions that release supplies.
. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for almost a decade.
Hmm, it's not based on FC6 but rather RHEL5.
As for the seemingly suspicious view of CentOS, they would argue they are actually helping.
For instance, in the new RHEL5 beta, redhat is said to "take .fc6 stuff as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their el5 builder" (quote from the centos list). CentOS is trying to put a beta together with everything compiled on the el5 builder and of course finding things that need to be done to do that.
I can't say in actuality if the information they are turning up is working it's way back to RH (in bug reports or whatever), but some people suggest it is and that such info will be eventually needed to turn out a final RHEL5.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:45:48AM +0900, javajunkie wrote:
. Instead, take a look at CentOS. The new CentOS release due out in a month or so is based on Fedora Core 6 and will be supported for almost a decade.
Hmm, it's not based on FC6 but rather RHEL5.
Yes, and RHEL5 is based on FC6. Judging from the beta, *very* based-on.
As for the seemingly suspicious view of CentOS, they would argue they are actually helping.
Definitely.
For instance, in the new RHEL5 beta, redhat is said to "take .fc6 stuff as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their el5 builder" (quote from the centos list). CentOS is trying to put a beta together with everything compiled on the el5 builder and of course finding things that need to be done to do that.
Exactly.
I can't say in actuality if the information they are turning up is working it's way back to RH (in bug reports or whatever), but some people suggest it is and that such info will be eventually needed to turn out a final RHEL5.
Yes, there are bugs filed with Red Hat's bugzilla.
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5 than FC5->FC6. I did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
Just my 2c.
On 2/27/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED m_d_berger_1900@yahoo.com wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice. Mike.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
If you think I'm a newbie and don't know that I'm doing then please prove me wrong. I used vmware image with FC4: http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/390
Please try and upload to vmare appliances page working updated FC6 version of Collaboration appliance.
On 3/3/07, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5 than FC5->FC6. I did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
Just my 2c.
On 2/27/07, Mike - EMAIL IGNORED m_d_berger_1900@yahoo.com wrote:
I am using FC4, and I just came across a reason to update. How long before FC7? Should I wait or go to FC6? I don't like to do it very often.
Thanks for your advice. Mike.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241 Skype: valent.turkovic
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:47:31 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
You can't upgrade FC4-->FC6, you have to first do FC4->FC5 than FC5->FC6. I did this and it broke XWIndows, Gnome and a bunch of other apps! I did it very carefully, read a bunch of upgrade tutorials, and went by them, and didn't have any non FC packages! And it still doesn't work!
[...]
That depends on your technique. Mine starts with downloading the new version, writing it to CDs, and then reformatting the hard-drive.
Mike.
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 19:02 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
That depends on your technique. Mine starts with downloading the new version, writing it to CDs, and then reformatting the hard-drive. I call that clean install not an upgrade.
I would that call a clean install not an upgrade.
yeah, that's not an update. I tried updating from FC4 to FC% and it blew to smithereens. I only do clean installs now. I just back up critical data and re-install it after the clean install is complete. :) Ric
-
Bruno Wolff III -
David Hunter -
javajunkie -
Jim Cornette -
Les Mikesell -
Matthew Miller -
Michael D. Berger -
Mikkel -
Ric Moore -
Steve Searle -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Valent Turkovic