Star Reviews: Fedora 7
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jun 2007 23:02 UTC
Fedora Core Some review of Fedora 7. First, eWeek concludes: "We were impressed to see how amenable to customization this popular Linux-based operating system has grown." Linux.com also reviews Fedora 7. "Fedora 7 was released last week, a little bit behind schedule, with a spate of new features, updates, and live CD installable "spins" of Fedora in KDE and GNOME flavors. I found a lot of good in this release, but a bug in the FireWire stack that attacked my external backup drive made this release just a little shy of perfect." Update: Two more Fedora articles, a review and a news article.
E-mail Print r 0   23 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/dx8
Permalink for comment 245869
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I don't think I'd have read quite such an extream view from his statement. However, yes it could have been cleaner.

I believe he was just saying SuSE was more stable than Fedora (I'm not sure if he was specifically refering to Open Suse, or the pay for distro).


But the thing is, both OpenSuSE and Fedora on a time based schedule; when OpenSuSE was released, it was a buggy riddled distribution, a few months later, it became more palitable. Same can be said for Fedora, a couple of months after its released, with a few updates, you'll find that its stability will improve.

But the same can be said for CentOS - have you looked at the tonnes upon tonnes of patches available for it - just as it has been released? Even so-called 'enterprise distributions' aren't immune to these issues.

If OpenSuse is to SLED, as CentOS is to RedHat EL, then yes, OpenSuse would be geared more towards a "static production environment", however if it is the same as Fedora, then I would say neither are applicable for a produciton environment (I'll clarify lower down what I mean by production).


No, OpenSUE is to SLED as Fedora is to RedHat Enterprise Linux. Its a community based distribution which the respective companies (Novell and Red Hat) base their enterprise distributions on. The only difference between the community vs. 'enterprise' is the level of support. Apart from that, they're exactly the same. So when you think about it, ask yourself, do you need the support provided by Red Hat or Novell? if not, you don't need an enterprise distribution.

Well, I suppose the first thing to clarify is the statement "production use" and what that actually means, as it is bandied about a lot, with out a defenition.


Maybe it is best to refrain from using such open ended statements such as 'production ready'.

I've been working as a systems administrator for about 10 years now, in various companies. In that time "production use/ environment" has primarily come to mean long support cycles.

I want to be able to install a server, and know that once it is working, I can forget about it's upgrade cycle for a significant amount of time, but be confident that security erata is available.


Then one could argue that what you should be saying is that you need *more* than just software, you need a complete package which includes support.

So therefore, the issue isn't with Fedora, but the fact that you need more than what Fedora provides. All Fedora provides is the software and support is left to the community. You need more than just community support.

So the issue isn't 'ready for production environment' it is "my needs and what the Fedora community can provide don't match up" - thats what should be said, not 'its not production ready' gives the message that Fedora is completely useless.

Edited 2007-06-07 11:31

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2