12:30 p.m.
Hi All;
What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new
dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
Workstation with Standard Subscription
or
Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Thanks in advance...
5:34 p.m.
kevin kempter wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> kevin kempter wrote:
>> Hi All;
>> What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
>> Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new
>> dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
>> Workstation with Standard Subscription
>> or
>> Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
>
> Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
> well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example,
> RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about
> every 6 months or so.
>
> I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the
> KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
>
> If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL
> sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get
> frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
> there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a
> test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
1) What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade'
from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ?
Upgrades are not a supported method is about the best I can describe it. If I
had machines justifying RHEL, I would NOT upgrade, a clean install is the way to
avoid having left something behind which will bite you. Upgrades of Fedora have
been reported here with mixed results and some reported problems of unintended
carryover.
2) Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without
restriction ?
You are entitled to anything in the channel.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
8:29 p.m.
Rick Stevens wrote:
If you can stand to lose blood and get
frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...
As a long-time Fedora user, I would have to disagree. This definitely applies to
Rawhide, but not to the standard Fedora issue.
12:19 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version
of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process,
report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved,
stable version that is useful for any length of time because every
version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
8:53 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no
version
of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process,
report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved,
stable version that is useful for any length of time because every
version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
I have quite a lot of sympathy with your general view.
But if you want something with a long life-span why not try Centos?
Personally, I run Fedora on most of my computers
because in my experience it is the most likely OS to meet my needs.
I'm afraid I don't run it to test updates for the good of humanity,
or of RedHat.
I don't find upgrades to new Fedora versions are particularly onerous;
if I did I would certainly change to another distribution.
7:33 p.m.
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:30:45PM -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Where are people using fedora? How many?
>>
> Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people
> on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how
> many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many
> people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to
> come up with the number of people using Fedora?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
uses some fairly decent guesses, noting how these statistics may not
be perfect, but they're as close as we have.
May I say that these numbers probably under-report by quite a bit, or at least
the number of machines is not the same as the number of downloads. Once I find a
comfort level with a release I drop it on 6-8 machines, using the bits I've
downloaded. Each upgrade gets pulled once, and is archived from cache to a
central location from which all new installs are done (by way of DVD rather than
network at times).
On the other hand, there may be a tiny percentage of people who download Fedora
and either don't try it or try it and don't use it. I have heard rumors of
people like that.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
9:54 p.m.
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year
> instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
months after a release.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
7:51 a.m.
Craig White wrote:
>>>>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes
for a year
>>>>> instead of six months.
>>>> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
>>>> about 13 months total.
>>> But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
>>> really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
>>> months after a release.
>> ----
>> for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
>> that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
>> before it had 6 months under it's belt.
>>
> CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of
> course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to
> have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty
> well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months
> while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take
> advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update
> support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might
> trust a release the update support is almost over.
----
I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases
and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the
water so to speak.
But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases,
i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to
say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.
Yes, I did mean the X.0 versions. Even at that point they have had more
QA than anything in fedora (mostly because the bulk of it came through
fedora...). There were some bugs in 5.0 but not the machine-crashing
kind on any of the machines where I installed it. By contrast, even
near the end of FC6's life, a kernel update would not boot on some
common scsi controllers.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
1:15 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Chris Tyler wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a
year
>>>> instead of six months.
>>> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
>>> about 13 months total.
>> But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
>> really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
>> months after a release.
> ----
> for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
> that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
> before it had 6 months under it's belt.
>
CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of
course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to
have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty
well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months
while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take
advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update
support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might
trust a release the update support is almost over.
----
I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases
and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the
water so to speak.
But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases,
i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to
say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.
Craig
12:21 a.m.
Craig White wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Chris Tyler wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year
>>> instead of six months.
>> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
>> about 13 months total.
> But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
> really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
> months after a release.
----
for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
before it had 6 months under it's belt.
CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of
course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to
have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty
well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months
while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take
advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update
support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might
trust a release the update support is almost over.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
11:56 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year
>> instead of six months.
>
> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
> about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
months after a release.
----
for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
before it had 6 months under it's belt.
Craig
7:41 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Claude Jones wrote:
> On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
>> The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that
>> no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
>
> I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real problem
> is that you refuse to accept that some people like it this way, and
> that if they don't, they have other choices...
> There's no problem except the one you continuously create with your
> endless pugilism
It seemed somewhat relevant to post a view that I think represents the
99.something% of computer users that don't use fedora (and my own
experience) in the context of a question about a choice between fedora
or something else. Sorry if it upsets the closed minority here, but I
liked the way RH development worked in the old days up through RH 7.3
where there was a continuous transition toward stability within a major
version.
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year
instead of six months. There are times when features in CentOS are not recent
enough, and the next Fedora release is not stable enough. I'm actually impressed
by the fact that FC10 is "non-critical reliable" before the preview is out. I
just worry that the official initial release will be close enough to the first
beta+rawhide to avoid functional differences.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
8:41 p.m.
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Rick Stevens wrote:
> If you can stand to lose blood and get
> frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
> there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...
As a long-time Fedora user, I would have to disagree. This
definitely
applies to Rawhide, but not to the standard Fedora issue.
I agree.
I don't buy this bleeding-edge stuff.
95% of the time something doesn't work in Fedora
it is because the developer has made a typo, or other simple error.
it's not because he/she is trying the equivalent of brain-surgery.
I think the leading-edge paradigm is usually used as an excuse
for trivial errors.
These occur all the time, inevitably.
But they should not be put down to anything but human oversight.
6:30 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Where are people using fedora? How many?
Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people
on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how
many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many
people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to
come up with the number of people using Fedora?
I have it running on my personal desktop and laptop.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
5:58 p.m.
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora.
And perhaps the only point.
Are you under
the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
mainstream desktop distribution?
No, I was under the impression that it was the development towards the
next RHEL release. As it has been through FC1->RHEL3, FC3->RHEL4,
FC6->RHEL6 with almost no surprises, almost replicating the old
X.0->X.2[->X.3] progressions. But I don't see current changes that make
sense for a future EL.
If you chose a distribution with a quick version turnover, and you
expect "long, smooth transitions", there is something wrong with
your judgment. Or are you trying to say that ALL Linux distributions
should strive for stability above all else?
No, I'm saying that to produce something usable, the development cycles
should have infrequent big discrete jumps, followed by fixing all of the
things that these inevitably break, and this time needs to overlap with
everyone adjusting the applications they run to the changes.
You keep complaining
that Fedora is not meeting your goals. Did you ever stop and think
that maybe that is because the goals of the Fedora community are not
the same as your goals? Fedora seams to be meeting a lot of people's
goals.
Where are people using fedora? How many?
So if these are not your goals, maybe you should look
elsewhere for a distribution that meats your goals, instead of
beating your head ageist the wall trying to change the goals of the
rest of us?
Basically I'm just wondering out loud where the next server distribution
is going to come from.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
5:51 p.m.
On Fri October 31 2008 2:26:25 pm Craig White wrote:
I vaguely recall you getting angry at me for much the same thing
that
you are dissing Les for here...it's not that his criticism isn't valid,
it's just that it gets repeated infinitely.
it was quite different, and anger would not be quite the right characterization
- but I do remember poking some fun at you
As a user, Les is entitled to criticize.
yes, he is, and further, I'm entitled to criticize his criticisms - but, I've
said my piece, I'm not going to say another word
As a reader of the list, it can be overly burdensome to have to read
through repetitive complaining.
indeed, but, that's the nature of most lists
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
5:41 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson
<mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
>>> were supposed to work for us.
>>>
>> Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
>> rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
>> "tinker", would we have Linux?
>
> Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be
> improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are
> going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question
> is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better
> stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get
> something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with
> major differences through their useful productive lives with
> considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test
> copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you
> don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't
> matter.
>
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under
the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is
was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase
one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover
would indicate the opposite.
Just to add --nowhere I read in the Fedora docs or release notes
that a particular release is to serve as a testbed for anything. It
appears that
simply Fedora users have come to terms that that is the case.
~af
5:23 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
>> were supposed to work for us.
>>
> Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
> rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
> "tinker", would we have Linux?
Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be
improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are
going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question
is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better
stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get
something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with
major differences through their useful productive lives with
considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test
copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you
don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't
matter.
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under
the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable,
mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is
was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase
one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover
would indicate the opposite.
If you chose a distribution with a quick version turnover, and you
expect "long, smooth transitions", there is something wrong with
your judgment. Or are you trying to say that ALL Linux distributions
should strive for stability above all else? You keep complaining
that Fedora is not meeting your goals. Did you ever stop and think
that maybe that is because the goals of the Fedora community are not
the same as your goals? Fedora seams to be meeting a lot of people's
goals. So if these are not your goals, maybe you should look
elsewhere for a distribution that meats your goals, instead of
beating your head ageist the wall trying to change the goals of the
rest of us?
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
4:09 p.m.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:53:29 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here
for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer?
Well, in my case, I use fedora to find out what nightmares will
bite me in future versions of redhat. Testing on fedora helps
me make sure my software will work when the next rhel release
comes out. So I certainly see fedora as beta test for rhel.
3:41 p.m.
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
> were supposed to work for us.
>
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
"tinker", would we have Linux?
Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be
improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are
going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question
is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better
stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get
something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with
major differences through their useful productive lives with
considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test
copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you
don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't
matter.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
3:16 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
were supposed to work for us.
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them,
rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to
"tinker", would we have Linux?
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
1:31 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:53:29 -0500,
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version
>> of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process,
>> report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved,
>> stable version that is useful for any length of time because every
>> version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
>>
> This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
were supposed to work for us.
Being able to make Fedora better is one of the reasons I use it.
2:27 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
> The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that
> no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real
problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it
this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices...
There's no problem except the one you continuously create with
your endless pugilism
It seemed somewhat relevant to post a view that I think represents the
99.something% of computer users that don't use fedora (and my own
experience) in the context of a question about a choice between fedora
or something else. Sorry if it upsets the closed minority here, but I
liked the way RH development worked in the old days up through RH 7.3
where there was a continuous transition toward stability within a major
version.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
1:26 p.m.
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 14:15 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
> The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that
> no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real
problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it
this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices...
There's no problem except the one you continuously create with
your endless pugilism
----
I vaguely recall you getting angry at me for much the same thing that
you are dissing Les for here...it's not that his criticism isn't valid,
it's just that it gets repeated infinitely.
As a user, Les is entitled to criticize.
As a reader of the list, it can be overly burdensome to have to read
through repetitive complaining.
Craig
1:15 p.m.
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that
no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real
problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it
this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices...
There's no problem except the one you continuously create with
your endless pugilism
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
12:53 p.m.
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
> The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version
> of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process,
> report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved,
> stable version that is useful for any length of time because every
> version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
>
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines
were supposed to work for us.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
12:06 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
It's not a beta.
That would imply that adequate testing has been done before shipping.
It is more of a proving ground things that may be used in
future Red Hat releases.
And that would imply that fedora users are, in fact, the real testers.
Which has been my experience... Is there some published list of
hardware that is tested to boot before an update is pushed out, or a set
of commands that are confirmed to work across some set of hardware types?
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version
of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process,
report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved,
stable version that is useful for any length of time because every
version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
11:44 a.m.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:05:28 -0700,
Rick Stevens <ricks(a)nerd.com> wrote:
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
It's not a beta. It is more of a proving ground things that may be used in
future Red Hat releases. You won't be able to update from Fedora to any
Red Hat release without needing to do some extra work to resolve conflicts
as you might expect updating from a beta version of a soon to be released
product to the final product.
While isn't intented to be unstable things, get missed sometimes and updates
can break things for some of the users. The breakage rate seems to be higher
than what happens for Red Hat products, so in that sense there is higher
risk to take into account as with running a beta version of a product.
3:45 p.m.
kevin kempter wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> kevin kempter wrote:
>> Hi All;
>> What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
>> Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new
>> dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
>> Workstation with Standard Subscription
>> or
>> Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
>
> Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
> well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example,
> RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about
> every 6 months or so.
>
> I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the
> KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
>
> If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL
> sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get
> frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
> there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a
> test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
1) What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade'
from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ?
Upgrades are always risky. They've gotten better, but they can still
be problematic. No matter which way you go (upgrade or fresh install),
BACK UP YOUR STUFF!
2) Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without
restriction ?
As long as you're "subscribed" to the up2date channels on RHEL, you can
add any component in that channel.
In some respects, CentOS is a good choice. It's built from the same
source code as RHEL, but it's free and uses yum to update (like Fedora
does). The primary downsides are you don't get Red Hat support and when
Red Hat makes an update, there's a little delay before CentOS has it.
It does get there--perhaps a week later, but it gets there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks(a)nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "The bogosity meter just pegged." -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2:11 p.m.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
kevin kempter wrote:
> Hi All;
> What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
> Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new
> dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
> Workstation with Standard Subscription
> or
> Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For
example,
RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about
every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the
KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL
sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get
frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a
test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
1) What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade'
from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ?
2) Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without
restriction ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks(a)nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- If Windows isn't a virus, then it sure as hell is a carrier! -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
2:05 p.m.
kevin kempter wrote:
Hi All;
What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual
core laptop w 12G of memory:
Workstation with Standard Subscription
or
Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example,
RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about
every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the
KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL
sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get
frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that
there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a
test case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks(a)nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- If Windows isn't a virus, then it sure as hell is a carrier! -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11:36 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:30:45PM -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Where are people using fedora? How many?
>
Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people
on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how
many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many
people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to
come up with the number of people using Fedora?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
uses some fairly decent guesses, noting how these statistics may not
be perfect, but they're as close as we have.
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
5650
days inactive
5654
days old
32 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Aldo Foot -
Bill Davidsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Tyler -
Claude Jones -
Craig White -
Kevin Kempter -
Les Mikesell -
Matt Domsch -
Mikkel -
Petrus de Calguarium -
Rick Stevens -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley