Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jun 2007 23:02 UTC
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.
Permalink for comment 245875
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-03-22
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.
Fedora has a release cycle of 6 to 8 months, I believe the official errata support time for a release is some thing along the lines of (R-2)+ 2 months. I.E. a release will be support for up to 2 months after it's second successor is released, this has only just been extended.
This gives you a errata support for at absalute most 14 months.
You state that after a few months, the product stabalises, so take that down to 12 months.
That's a year, that you have a stable system with erata support, you show me an admin that has the time to upgrade all of their servers on a yearly bassis (maintaining one or two servers for one or two users does not count).
Where as RedHat state they will support a product for either 5 or 7 years.
Your trying to equate those to product life cycles?
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.
Okay, lets put this straight.
Drop the "you's", I'm 100% happy with the fedora/redhat relationship. I KNOW where I will use one or the other (or CentOS).
The thing that I find anoying is, Person a comes along and says "fedora is shit and buggy and not enterprise ready". A) "shit" is subjective. B) "Buggy" For what I use fedora for, I don't find it buggy, and don't have a problem with the QA implemented, and feel it should not be crtasised for what it is doing. C) It is NOT targeting the enterprise, so why critasize it for this.
Some one may wish to come back and state "Yes it is enterprise ready, at least for my enterprise", then so be it. Enterprise is obviously subjective, and we are coming from entirely different environments.
I'm happy with fedora.