Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
Huh ??????
Fedora is more stable in my experience that RHEL ever was. When I was running Scientific Linux (clone of RHEL of CentOS) I almost went INSANE!
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
Many thanks, -T
On 3/30/19 6:20 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
Huh ??????
Fedora is more stable in my experience that RHEL ever was. When I was running Scientific Linux (clone of RHEL of CentOS) I almost went INSANE!
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
By "stable" they probably don't mean it is "unstable" as in prone to crashes.
I believe they may mean that within a given release there may be updates which may update a version of a library which is incompatible with their app.
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
On 3/29/19 5:39 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 3/30/19 6:20 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
Huh ??????
Fedora is more stable in my experience that RHEL ever was. When I was running Scientific Linux (clone of RHEL of CentOS) I almost went INSANE!
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
By "stable" they probably don't mean it is "unstable" as in prone to crashes.
I believe they may mean that within a given release there may be updates which may update a version of a library which is incompatible with their app.
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Indeed!
Is there some statement from the developers on this and what Fedora's purpose is?
On 3/30/19 1:41 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I believe they may mean that within a given release there may be updates which may update a version of a library which is incompatible with their app.
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Not quite an extreme case since 5.X does not have incompatibilities versus 4.X. Bad example.
Vendors often have a very bizarre approach to supporting distros, for example "I compiled on SuSE three years ago, it happens to work on Fedora today, so if it doesn't work on Fedora tomorrow, it is Fedora's fault".
Regards.
On 4/1/19 4:47 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 3/30/19 1:41 AM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I believe they may mean that within a given release there may be updates which may update a version of a library which is incompatible with their app.
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Not quite an extreme case since 5.X does not have incompatibilities versus 4.X. Bad example.
Vendors often have a very bizarre approach to supporting distros, for example "I compiled on SuSE three years ago, it happens to work on Fedora today, so if it doesn't work on Fedora tomorrow, it is Fedora's fault".
Regards.
Closed source simply do not like to maintain their stuff. There are notable exceptions, such a Qoppa
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:39:16AM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Note that this isn't *really* an extreme case — there's no bigger difference in that increase than from 4.19 to 4.20. Linus Torvalds just doesn't like big point release numbers.
But, on the other hand, even those point-release changes are much more aggressive than the carefully curated kabi promised by the RHEL kernel.
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 2:09:37 PM EDT Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:39:16AM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Note that this isn't *really* an extreme case — there's no bigger difference in that increase than from 4.19 to 4.20. Linus Torvalds just doesn't like big point release numbers.
Even as such, the kernel still doesn't break userland.
On 4/5/19 2:09 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:39:16AM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Note that this isn't *really* an extreme case — there's no bigger difference in that increase than from 4.19 to 4.20. Linus Torvalds just doesn't like big point release numbers.
But, on the other hand, even those point-release changes are much more aggressive than the carefully curated kabi promised by the RHEL kernel.
Oh, OK. It was just that the move broke both some older nVidia drivers as well as something in VirtualBox.
GentlePeople:
I that you haven't observed this by now!
Proposed statement on Fedora's purpose:
"Fedora has no purpose it only exists!"
Thomas Dineen
On 4/4/2019 1:19 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 4/5/19 2:09 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:39:16AM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
An extreme case of this would be F29 going from the 4.X kernel to the 5.X kernel.
Note that this isn't *really* an extreme case — there's no bigger difference in that increase than from 4.19 to 4.20. Linus Torvalds just doesn't like big point release numbers.
But, on the other hand, even those point-release changes are much more aggressive than the carefully curated kabi promised by the RHEL kernel.
Oh, OK. It was just that the move broke both some older nVidia drivers as well as something in VirtualBox.
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:37:01 PM EDT Thomas Dineen wrote:
GentlePeople:
I that you haven't observed this by now!Proposed statement on Fedora's purpose:
"Fedora has no purpose it only exists!"
Thomas Dineen
I seem to recall some comical "purpose" for Fedora, written as something like "to make server's lights blink".
That's it! that's the ticket!
Proposed statement on Fedora's purpose: "To cause servers to use more power!"
Without this the entire economy collapses!
Thomas Dineen
On 4/4/2019 1:38 PM, John Harris wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:37:01 PM EDT Thomas Dineen wrote:
GentlePeople:
I that you haven't observed this by now!Proposed statement on Fedora's purpose:
"Fedora has no purpose it only exists!"
Thomas Dineen
I seem to recall some comical "purpose" for Fedora, written as something like "to make server's lights blink".
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
ToddAndMargo via users writes:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
Huh ??????
Any vendor is free to set whatever policies they wish.
It is true that Fedora is more bleeding edge than RHEL/CentOS. And, it is true that stuff is far more likely to break in Fedora than in a long-term, stable distro like RHEL/CentOS.
Whether or not the vendor is "right" in some metaphysical sense, is besides the point. That's what the vendor's current business model is based on. If that's unacceptable, you can always take your business to another vendor.
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
It'll be likely to be more productive to find another vendor.
I bought a new laptop last month. The vendor had no issues preloading F29 XFCE spin. They saved me the trouble of doing that, myself.
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Serverbecause the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
This should give a fair amount of background behind the project and it's goals, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
-- Rex
On 3/30/19 6:16 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Serverbecause the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
This should give a fair amount of background behind the project and it's goals, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
-- Rex
That helps a lot. Thank you!
Anything on Fedora's relationship to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the assertion that Fedora only exists as a test platform for testing RHEL?
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 3/30/19 6:16 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Serverbecause the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
This should give a fair amount of background behind the project and it's goals, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
-- Rex
That helps a lot. Thank you!
Anything on Fedora's relationship to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the assertion that Fedora only exists as a test platform for testing RHEL?
Here's some additional links, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/fedora-and-red-hat-enterpris... https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/articles/relationship...
-- Rex
On 3/30/19 9:35 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 3/30/19 6:16 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Serverbecause the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
This should give a fair amount of background behind the project and it's goals, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
-- Rex
That helps a lot. Thank you!
Anything on Fedora's relationship to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the assertion that Fedora only exists as a test platform for testing RHEL?
Here's some additional links, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/fedora-and-red-hat-enterpris... https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/articles/relationship...
Thank you!
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Anything on Fedora's relationship to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the assertion that Fedora only exists as a test platform for testing RHEL?
Some people say that and Fedora is the future, how RHEL will look like. Fedora is a community project sponsored by Red Hat.
https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/articles/relationship...
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:20 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
You might want to ask what they mean by "support"?
Won't have anything to do with it? Won't provide technical support for users using it?
The latter probably wouldn't matter. They could just direct users to where the real support actually is.
On 3/31/19 2:49 AM, Tim via users wrote:
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 15:20 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
You might want to ask what they mean by "support"?
Won't have anything to do with it? Won't provide technical support for users using it?
The latter probably wouldn't matter. They could just direct users to where the real support actually is.
It means they have a problem in their code and don't feel like fixing it. It is a different culture than open source.
On Sun, 2019-03-31 at 15:04 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
It means they have a problem in their code and don't feel like fixing it. It is a different culture than open source.
In that case, then Fedora is a useful debugging tool that helps them predict the changes that they'll need to make for their product continue to work with RHEL, CentOS, etc.
On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:11:47 +1030 Tim via users wrote:
In that case, then Fedora is a useful debugging tool that helps them predict the changes that they'll need to make for their product continue to work with RHEL, CentOS, etc.
That is absolutely the reason I run fedora on my desktop at work. I find out about all the compiler and kernel changes that will screw up my debugger product before they show up in RHEL and CentOS. (I have a program which is currently 5518 lines long to test and report on variations in ptrace() and wot-not so the debugger can dynamically adapt to the system it is running on :-).
ToddAndMargo via users:
Hi All,
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
Huh ??????
Fedora is more stable in my experience that RHEL ever was. When I was running Scientific Linux (clone of RHEL of CentOS) I almost went INSANE!
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
Many thanks, -T
Fedora is bleeding edge and neither would I put it on a server, I would likely take CentOS. The purpose of RHEL and CentOS is indeed for enterprise whereas Fedora is for desktop where you actually want some change feature wise.
Fedora is 'unstable' in the sense of changing versions and adding new features on top of the latest release. CentOS/RHEL stays on fixed versions for a long time period giving you that kind of stability without change that enterprises want.
On 3/31/19 4:51 PM, David Dusanic wrote:
Fedora is 'unstable' in the sense of changing versions and adding new features on top of the latest release. CentOS/RHEL stays on fixed versions for a long time period giving you that kind of stability without change that enterprises want.
I think the work unstable gets misinterpreted at lot in this context as you pointed out. It does not mean crashing.
That would mean that if your program actually works on such on out of date system, that you would be loath to make any improvements to your program over fear of it breaking and RHEL is very, very slow (seven years or more) to fix anything.
Fedora is a Kaisen operating system and RHEL is an anti-Kaisen operating system. You pick which works for you. If you plan to make improvements to your program, then Fedora is the way to go as Fedora actually fixes things.
RHEL would be great for a set and forget appliance. But you can do that with any OS by disabling the updates.
On 4/1/19 6:34 AM, David Dusanic wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users: But you can do that
with any OS by disabling the updates.
I would not recommend disabling updates. RHEL gives you updates, too but they are security fixes and patches.
RHEL indeed does do minimal updates. Mostly security updates, which they do a good job of keeping up with. Updates to fix issues with your software: HAHAHAHAHAHA. RHEL is frozen.
And good luck asking upstream for help. They are VERY DERISIVE of the unmaintained nature of RHEL. Even if they want to help, they can't. I have several bug reports on RHEL that are over five years old. That does not happen with Fedora.
-T
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:40:26 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I have several bug reports on RHEL that are over five years old. That does not happen with Fedora.
Sure about that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451562
(11 years old now :-).
On 2019-04-01 6:07 p.m., Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:40:26 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I have several bug reports on RHEL that are over five years old. That does not happen with Fedora.
Sure about that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451562
(11 years old now :-).
I've had so many bug reports to Fedora go ignored, only to have them auto-close when the version I filed against goes EOL. I rarely even bother filing bugs against it anymore.
On 4/1/19 3:30 PM, Digimer wrote:
I've had so many bug reports to Fedora go ignored, only to have them auto-close when the version I filed against goes EOL. I rarely even bother filing bugs against it anymore.
Come to think of it, I have a few of those too. But they were all non critical and I found ways around them.
All the critical stuff I ask about gets fixed. Well, so far...
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 06:30:21PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
I've had so many bug reports to Fedora go ignored, only to have them auto-close when the version I filed against goes EOL. I rarely even bother filing bugs against it anymore.
Yeah, this is frustrating, but there's just plain more bugs to go around than developer resources. In many cases, especially where the issue requires feature development, you may have more success working directly with the upstream. Fedora packagers are generally reluctant to carry significant downstream changes.
On 4/4/19 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 06:30:21PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
I've had so many bug reports to Fedora go ignored, only to have them auto-close when the version I filed against goes EOL. I rarely even bother filing bugs against it anymore.
Yeah, this is frustrating, but there's just plain more bugs to go around than developer resources. In many cases, especially where the issue requires feature development, you may have more success working directly with the upstream. Fedora packagers are generally reluctant to carry significant downstream changes.
I just ask them who upstream is. Then I deal directly with them. When it gets fixed, I link the fix comments to the Fedora Bug and Fedora is more than happy to oblige.
You CAN NOT do this with RHEL and clones. Upstream tells you that yo are being ridiculous running such an out dated OS and they can't help you, even if they wanted to.
On 4/1/19 3:07 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:40:26 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I have several bug reports on RHEL that are over five years old. That does not happen with Fedora.
Sure about that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451562
(11 years old now :-).
Oh my!
On 3/31/19 4:51 PM, David Dusanic wrote:
Fedora is bleeding edge
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel. Are the repo's on the latest version? They are not. Just the one behind it usually.
I look at Fedroa as up-to-date, not bleeding edge. You can get bleeding edge elsewhere if you want. Bleeding edge would be the 5.0 kernel, etc..
Oh, you know what?
$ uname -r 5.0.3-200.fc29.x86_64
Closer to the edge.
And, by the way. RHEL is so BUGGY that it won't even support the C236 chipset. Cost me about 2000 u$d in free consulting to figure that out.
7.2 not compatible with C236 and RSTe motherboard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353423 Reported: 2016-07-07 03:30 UTC by Todd (me by the way)
And RHEL won't even do anything about it either. Had I reported this bug under Fedora, I doubt it would have gone past a month before they fixed it. These and other BUG in RHEL almost drive me INSANE and why I dump them for Fedora, which I an still tickled with.
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
ToddAndMargo via users:
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel. Are the repo's on the latest version? They are not. Just the one behind it usually.
I look at Fedroa as up-to-date, not bleeding edge. You can get bleeding edge elsewhere if you want. Bleeding edge would be the 5.0 kernel, etc..
Oh, you know what?
$ uname -r 5.0.3-200.fc29.x86_64
Closer to the edge.
And, by the way. RHEL is so BUGGY that it won't even support the C236 chipset. Cost me about 2000 u$d in free consulting to figure that out.
7.2 not compatible with C236 and RSTe motherboard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353423 Reported: 2016-07-07 03:30 UTC by Todd (me by the way)
And RHEL won't even do anything about it either. Had I reported this bug under Fedora, I doubt it would have gone past a month before they fixed it. These and other BUG in RHEL almost drive me INSANE and why I dump them for Fedora, which I an still tickled with.
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
You are right, bleeding edge is another word used too often and not always describes Fedora well. For me it is *recent* and *up-to-date* in comparison with other distros but not bleeding edge as in some rolling distributions but maybe close.
I never used RHEL, I only have experience with CentOS and I never found it buggy, on the contrary.
On 4/1/19 6:40 AM, David Dusanic wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users:
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel. Are the repo's on the latest version? They are not. Just the one behind it usually.
I look at Fedroa as up-to-date, not bleeding edge. You can get bleeding edge elsewhere if you want. Bleeding edge would be the 5.0 kernel, etc..
Oh, you know what?
$ uname -r 5.0.3-200.fc29.x86_64
Closer to the edge.
And, by the way. RHEL is so BUGGY that it won't even support the C236 chipset. Cost me about 2000 u$d in free consulting to figure that out.
7.2 not compatible with C236 and RSTe motherboard https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353423 Reported: 2016-07-07 03:30 UTC by Todd (me by the way)
And RHEL won't even do anything about it either. Had I reported this bug under Fedora, I doubt it would have gone past a month before they fixed it. These and other BUG in RHEL almost drive me INSANE and why I dump them for Fedora, which I an still tickled with.
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
You are right, bleeding edge is another word used too often and not always describes Fedora well. For me it is *recent* and *up-to-date* in comparison with other distros but not bleeding edge as in some rolling distributions but maybe close.
I never used RHEL, I only have experience with CentOS and I never found it buggy, on the contrary.
Just wait until you need to install and software that is current. If you are happy with 10 year old software and do not need any enhancements to it, you will be fine. Everything out of the box is fine. Just don't try to add your own stuff to it.
The straw that broke my back was when a bug in RHEL caused Osmo to delete my business contacts (I am a backup whore, so I survived) and the developer of Osma had a fix for it but could not help me because RHEL was too out of date.
It did not help that I lost of 2000 u$d figuring out that RHEL had a timing issue with the C236 chipset and RSTe raid. It work fine on the Live USB stick, but since native was too fast for it, it would randomly not read the hard drive and not boot. RHEL could have cared less.
oh ya, and RHEL can't run qemu-kvm's wonderful enhancements and bug fixes either. The irony that KVM is a Red Hat project and even they can't run the good stuff on RHEL is not lost on me.
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:51:32 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: [....]
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
I'm confused, maybe because I've never tried RHEL. (No way I could ever afford it.) Where do these bugs come from, and how do they get into RHEL??
On 2019-04-01 11:58 a.m., Beartooth wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:51:32 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: [....]
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
I'm confused, maybe because I've never tried RHEL. (No way I could ever afford it.) Where do these bugs come from, and how do they get into RHEL??
I use RHEL and CentOS quite a lot, and it's quite stable. They can have quirks, certainly, but once you get a system working the way you like, it will keep working that way for years without issue. Now if you add EPEL or other third party repos, things might change, but that's not the fault of RHEL/CentOS.
I use Fedora as my daily OS and I've used it frequently to "test the waters" for what future RHEL/CentOS might be like. I've even done early port work on our code on Fedora Server, but I would never put that into production.
Fedora has a life cycle of "One release + one month". So when F30 is released, F28 will got EOL one month after. With an average of about 2 releases a year, that means a system would become unsupported in a bit over a year from initial release. In the world of servers, that's exceptionally short and not sustainable.
Our platform would not be supported on Fedora Server for this reason alone. It takes time to get things stable, and the 10-year life space of RHEL/CentOS is crucial for us. It's nothing for a deployed system to still be in use, basically untouched saved for regular updates, for 5+ years.
I suspect that the reason OP's vendor won't support Fedora is similar.
On 4/1/19 11:23 AM, Digimer wrote:
On 2019-04-01 11:58 a.m., Beartooth wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:51:32 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: [....]
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
I'm confused, maybe because I've never tried RHEL. (No way I could ever afford it.) Where do these bugs come from, and how do they get into RHEL??
I use RHEL and CentOS quite a lot, and it's quite stable. They can have quirks, certainly, but once you get a system working the way you like, it will keep working that way for years without issue. Now if you add EPEL or other third party repos, things might change, but that's not the fault of RHEL/CentOS.
I use Fedora as my daily OS and I've used it frequently to "test the waters" for what future RHEL/CentOS might be like. I've even done early port work on our code on Fedora Server, but I would never put that into production.
Fedora has a life cycle of "One release + one month". So when F30 is released, F28 will got EOL one month after. With an average of about 2 releases a year, that means a system would become unsupported in a bit over a year from initial release. In the world of servers, that's exceptionally short and not sustainable.
Our platform would not be supported on Fedora Server for this reason alone. It takes time to get things stable, and the 10-year life space of RHEL/CentOS is crucial for us. It's nothing for a deployed system to still be in use, basically untouched saved for regular updates, for 5+ years.
I suspect that the reason OP's vendor won't support Fedora is similar.
By stable, one needs to state "stable as in does not crash" or "stable as in the code base is frozen".
The vendor just does not like spending the time or money to fix his stuff. This will bite in the the butt eventually as even RHEL eventually changes releases.
My experience, is that software have the same issue as "broken glass" has with crime. You don't go after the little crimes and eventually you only have the big one to cope with. Software is the same way. It is NEVER finished. There is always something to enhance and to fix. You don't keep up with it, eventually it will pile up on your house of cards will bite you really hard.
The vendor is fooling by not seeing this as an opportunity to keep is code clean.
On 4/1/19 8:58 AM, Beartooth wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:51:32 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: [....]
I think that the term "stable" here should be replaced with "buggy". RHEL is intensely buggy and their bugs seldom get fixed; Fedora has a few bugs, but they are rapidly taken care of.
I'm confused, maybe because I've never tried RHEL. (No way I could ever afford it.) Where do these bugs come from, and how do they get into RHEL??
You can run it for free by running a clone, such as CentOS and Scientific Linux.
The bugs basically come from RHEL's habit of taking a defunct, unsupported version of Fedora, bugs and all and freezing it. They will fix security bugs that embarrass them, but that is basically it. The idea is to have a predicable platform that has minimal enhancement so as to not break software.
This all sounds good, but software always has thing to improve and bugs to fix. The developers of software (upstream, etc.) can't help you as RHEL is just to stinkin' out of date.
So if you are happy with what you got, great. Don't improve anything or fix any bugs in your stuff, or your are dead meat.
If you are a large enough company to have your own staff of developers that can SPECIFICALLY develop for RHEL and you control over all your critical software, it is not much of any issue.
For the rest of us, Fedora is a shining example of Kaisen at work (Kaisen is Dr. Demming's phrase for "Constant Improvement").
When I first started using Fedora a year and a half ago, I literally giggled at every thing that started working correctly. And Fedora fixed every single think I found wrong in a matter of weeks, not decades (literally), with the exception that I still can't read my wife's Android tablet (I could on RHEL).
I still get excited ever time Fedora boots up. I adore Fedora.
RHEL has its place, but not in a dynamic environment. It is great for appliances that never change. But yo can do that with any OS by turning off the updates. (Windows 10 users can attest to that!)
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 08:51:32PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 3/31/19 4:51 PM, David Dusanic wrote:
Fedora is bleeding edge
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel.
Yeah, thank you Todd and Margo. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/#_first "we provide the latest in stable and robust, useful, and powerful free software". We definitely don't want to be bleeding edge. We have an excellent and incredibly active QA team, and our goal is for you to be able to follow all of this upstream open source innovation _without_ blood or injury.
On 4/4/19 11:12 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 08:51:32PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 3/31/19 4:51 PM, David Dusanic wrote:
Fedora is bleeding edge
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel.
Yeah, thank you Todd and Margo. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/#_first "we provide the latest in stable and robust, useful, and powerful free software". We definitely don't want to be bleeding edge. We have an excellent and incredibly active QA team, and our goal is for you to be able to follow all of this upstream open source innovation _without_ blood or injury.
Perfect! I will rub the vendor's face in this!
On 4/4/19 11:12 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 08:51:32PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 3/31/19 4:51 PM, David Dusanic wrote:
Fedora is bleeding edge
Not really. It is the next thing that is stable after the bleeding edge. Think LibreOffice and Firefox and the kernel.
Yeah, thank you Todd and Margo. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/#_first "we provide the latest in stable and robust, useful, and powerful free software". We definitely don't want to be bleeding edge. We have an excellent and incredibly active QA team, and our goal is for you to be able to follow all of this upstream open source innovation _without_ blood or injury.
I rankle at the "bleeding edge" statement hurled at Fedora. The QA teams does not let buggy stuff lose on us. I am so tickled with Fedroa after all those years on RHEL and clones, that it has been a year and a half now since I migrated everyone over from RHEL to Fedroa and I still get the giggles watching everything JUST WORK!
Well, not everything, just 99.9% of it and I have been able to get fixed what does or worked around it. Totally different culture/attitude than RHEL.
As far as RHEL not working on the C236 chipset, it is their bastardized kernel. I do not think there is any hope of it ever improving. Kind of a house of cards. Keeps them from running a current kernel. and keeps them "stable", meaning frozen / no improvements.
Fedora is the most wonderful example of Kaisen (constant improvement) I can think of.
-T
Okay one last slam at RHEL: "You did not use the approved hardware list!" Oh, you mean the one with such out dated hardware on it that I can't even find it anyone, even if I wanted to? Not even on FleeBay? It is their universal excuse for low quality software.
ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org writes:
Okay one last slam at RHEL:
As someone who works full-time on RHEL[*], please consider that your understanding of what RHEL is and who it is for may color your experience with it. You are not the ideal RHEL customer, so of course it doesn't meet your strict needs for constant change, bug-free operation, and free support.
And perhaps your time is not as valuable to you as it is to the myriad employees who have to qualify and certify their applications on a dozen or more operating systems and a wide range of specific hardware configurations just to make a living, but feel free to self-certify anything you use if that's what you need, or hire someone to do it on your behalf.
I hope you find a distro that makes you happy, but please don't consider other distros to be "bad" just because they aren't right for you.
[*] and Fedora, and upstream, but I officially speak for none of them...
On 4/5/19 2:36 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org writes:
Okay one last slam at RHEL:
As someone who works full-time on RHEL[*], please consider that your understanding of what RHEL is and who it is for may color your experience with it. You are not the ideal RHEL customer, so of course it doesn't meet your strict needs for constant change, bug-free operation, and free support.
And perhaps your time is not as valuable to you as it is to the myriad employees who have to qualify and certify their applications on a dozen or more operating systems and a wide range of specific hardware configurations just to make a living, but feel free to self-certify anything you use if that's what you need, or hire someone to do it on your behalf.
I hope you find a distro that makes you happy, but please don't consider other distros to be "bad" just because they aren't right for you.
[*] and Fedora, and upstream, but I officially speak for none of them...
Hi DJ,
You are correct.
My experience with RHEL and clones has been a technical and financial disaster. Other's experience may and do vary.
I was expecting a "stable" OS, but did not realize that "stable" meant "frozen" not high quality or lack of crashing.
Now on timing issue with C236 chipsets, which cost me over 2000 U$D to figure out in free consulting (it was "fun" working all night rebuilding a server),
7.2 not compatible with C236 and RSTe motherboard: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353423
Supermicro even offered to give you whatever hardware you required and you still refused to remediate it.
Now this was my fault as RHEL is following the Open Source model: give away the software for free and charge for consulting. Same as the Code Weavers and Wine. As a one man shop, that was way, way out of my financial capability. So for me, RHEL is an "As Is" OS. No Kaisen (constant improvement) will ever happen, unless someone with far greater funding than I trips across the same problem and can afford to put you guys on their payroll.
I should have realized this years ago. It would have saved me a lot of agony and money. Fedora is a wonderful Kaisen OS and is a perfect match for me. Things get fixed in Fedora (usually), but seldom in RHEL unless you can afford to payroll Red Hat.
By the way "CentOS" or Community Operating System, is not "Community" in the sense that Fedora is. There is no Kaisen in CentOS either as it is a clone of RHEL. "Community" in CentOS's context is a bunch of really nice guys will to help you. And they are extraordinary fellows.
By the way, I use qemu-KVM constantly. It is MISERABLE under RHEL but wonderful under Fedora. RHEL can not run any of the wonderful fixes and enhancements the KVM project has come up with. And the irony that KVM is also a Red hat project is not lost on me.
RHEL is great for a set and forget application. And if your are a large, well funded company that can put RHEL on its payroll. RHEL does have its place. I just misunderstood what "stable" meant.
If you are guessing that I am righteously pissed at Red Hat, you are correct. I will get over it in a couple of years.
-T
+1 (or more)
/* begin rant:
I seldom post to the list, but I read each and every post everyday. IMHO the signal is buried by the noise.
I have used RedHat since 1998, ver. 5.2, switched to Fedora in 2003, and been here ever since. I run Fedora 29, both X86_64 and i686 on a workstation (X86_64) and a netbook (i686), the former with the Cinnamon DE, the latter Xfce. Each time I upgrade or do a clean install, Fedora just works.
I fail to understand why posters choose to trash RHEL on this list. I don't run RHEL, I run Fedora. The only current information I have about RHEL is that it was good enough to entice IBM to buy it. I thank Red Hat for supporting Fedora and it concerns me that many people use this list to downgrade RHEL.
To all of you developers that work for Red Hat and also maintain Fedora: Kudos! Red Hat has sponsored and you have produced a very good, very kool OS!
/* end rant
Good night from the rural mountains of Western Maine, USA. Peace be with you.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 6:14 PM Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Okay one last slam at RHEL:
Yes, please and thank you, let that be the last one. :)
It's really not appropriate for this forum. We're here to talk about Fedora, not gripe about any other distributions.
Thanks,
-- Todd _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 4/5/19 4:00 PM, Stephen Perkins wrote:
I fail to understand why posters choose to trash RHEL on this list
If you look at the original posting, you will understand. A vendor is giving me a bad time about running an "unstable" OS and tells me I should be running RHEL or clones instead. So the comparison needed to be made.
On 4/5/19 4:00 PM, Stephen Perkins wrote:
+1 (or more)
/* begin rant:
I seldom post to the list, but I read each and every post everyday. IMHO the signal is buried by the noise.
I have used RedHat since 1998, ver. 5.2, switched to Fedora in 2003, and been here ever since. I run Fedora 29, both X86_64 and i686 on a workstation (X86_64) and a netbook (i686), the former with the Cinnamon DE, the latter Xfce. Each time I upgrade or do a clean install, Fedora just works.
I fail to understand why posters choose to trash RHEL on this list. I don't run RHEL, I run Fedora. The only current information I have about RHEL is that it was good enough to entice IBM to buy it. I thank Red Hat for supporting Fedora and it concerns me that many people use this list to downgrade RHEL.
To all of you developers that work for Red Hat and also maintain Fedora: Kudos! Red Hat has sponsored and you have produced a very good, very kool OS!
/* end rant
Good night from the rural mountains of Western Maine, USA. Peace be with you.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 6:14 PM Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Okay one last slam at RHEL:
Yes, please and thank you, let that be the last one. :)
It's really not appropriate for this forum. We're here to talk about Fedora, not gripe about any other distributions.
Thanks,
-- Todd
Hi Todd,
As I told Steven:
"If you look at the original posting, you will understand. A vendor is giving me a bad time about running an "unstable" OS and tells me I should be running RHEL or clones instead. So the comparison needed to be made."
So it is appropriate. That I am passionate about the issue and gave RHEL a whack over the head a little too many times, you have would have a point.
-Todd
Hi,
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
As I told Steven:
"If you look at the original posting, you will understand. A vendor is giving me a bad time about running an "unstable" OS and tells me I should be running RHEL or clones instead. So the comparison needed to be made."So it is appropriate. That I am passionate about the issue and gave RHEL a whack over the head a little too many times, you have would have a point.
No, it's not appropriate. It was perhaps worth a mention that a vendor only supported RHEL and you asked for information that might help them consider Fedora.
Folks here have been extremely patient, which is a testament to the excellent group of people who read and post to this list.
The repeated complaints about RHEL are simply not on topic here. Please refrain from it in the future.
Thanks,
On 4/5/19 5:11 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
It was perhaps worth a mention that a vendor only supported RHEL and you asked for information that might help them consider Fedora.
Hi Todd,
Oh no. They do already support Fedora as well as Ubuntu.
They just always complain when a bug shows up in their stuff that you should be using RHEL. And they get real quiet when it shows up in RHEL too.
I was just trying to get documentation as to what Fedora's purpose is. And as I have two great cites, I can now stop whacking RHEL. Now they can quit with Fedora only being an unstable proving ground for RHEL.
I think 95% of this is them not wanting to spend the time and money to keep after things. Paid software and open source are a totally different creature when it comes to software quality.
Have you ever worked in the industry and had a manager get in your face yelling "JUST SHIP IT!"? That is the culture that I am talking about. Those guys are extremely reluctant to fix anything.
I may have overdone it a bit on RHEL. The guys at Red Hat are an incredible bunch and even though I am righteously pissed at RHEL, I do admire Red Hat a lot. I use qemu-kvm specifically because it has Red Hat behind it.
-Todd
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:20:10PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Server because the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
We certainly make no such claim. In fact, to the contrary, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/, where I hope we make this very clear: the Project enables the production of _user-focused_ solutions. We're not just building a testing ground.
Fedora Server is one of those solutions, and here's its defining documentation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document#Fedora_S...:
From that:
Fedora Server Vision Statement ------------------------------
Fedora Server is the preferred [community] platform for system administrators and developers seeking to deploy applications and services that use the latest technology on a stable foundation with effective resource utilization.
Fedora Server Mission Statement -------------------------------
Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles.
Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
Does that help?
On 4/4/19 11:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:20:10PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I just had a vendor tell me they do not support Fedora Serverbecause the the developers of Fedora had stated that it is not a stable release and is used only as a testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And as such, they only supported RHEL and Cent OS.
We certainly make no such claim. In fact, to the contrary, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/, where I hope we make this very clear: the Project enables the production of _user-focused_ solutions. We're not just building a testing ground.
Fedora Server is one of those solutions, and here's its defining documentation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document#Fedora_S...:
From that:
Fedora Server Vision Statement ------------------------------ Fedora Server is the preferred [community] platform for system administrators and developers seeking to deploy applications and services that use the latest technology on a stable foundation with effective resource utilization. Fedora Server Mission Statement ------------------------------- Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles.Is there a statement from the Fedora developers somewhere that I could send this vendor to straighten him out?
Does that help?
Perfect! I am going to rub this one into the vendor's face too!
-
Beartooth -
David Dusanic -
Digimer -
DJ Delorie -
Ed Greshko -
John Harris -
Matthew Miller -
Rex Dieter -
Roberto Ragusa -
Sam Varshavchik -
Stephen Perkins -
Thomas Dineen -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger -
ToddAndMargo -
Tom Horsley