[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
ed at eh3.com
Thu Sep 25 10:28:27 MDT 2003
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 11:15, Andrew Gilmore wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 15:53, Joseph McDonald wrote:
> [snip] comments and replies.
> > It seems we're not the only ones either..
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/shrike-list/2003-September/msg00963.html
> This post is a VERY good summary of the problems I see in the new Redhat
> I am not sure what I am going to do. I may just have to fall back on
> Solaris for production use, since I'm not that deeply into Linux for
> I'd still like to use a Redhat Linux desktop, but with the upgrades and
> errata expiring so quickly for any particular release of Fedora, I'm not
> This makes me very unhappy.
That post that you reference does a lousy job of summarizing whats
happening. Its just a rant containing little or no actual information.
If thats the only post you've read, then please take a few more minutes
The real summary is:
1) If you want stability (5-year product life) with guaranteed
support and updates then you can run RHEL WS or ES for
$180/yr or $350/yr for the first year (~100/yr afterwards),
with all updates through RHN.
2) If you want a distro thats in the process of *becoming*
the next RHEL and contains more frequently updated packages,
then you can run the "Fedora Core". And if you subscribe
to RHN for $60/yr (which is completely optional) then you
can get access to updates in exactly the same fashion as
the RHEL versions---albeit with a shorter "product
lifetime". You will also be able to get these updates
through other (free) channels such as apt and yum.
I'm actually rather happy with this arrangement since I'll get:
- a faster-revving RH-like distro for my laptop
- a nice, stable distro (RHEL WS & ES) for my servers
ps - I own no stock in RH and am not in any way supported by them.
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Room 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
email: eh3 at mit.edu, ed at eh3.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the LUG