They also keep the same package versions for 18-24 months.
I know very well that there are fixes that RHEL (and consequently, CentOS) do not push into the release until the next quarterly update.
Do you think any distribution pushes all its fixes into a stable branch as an update.””” “””Of course many bugs would closed as fixed in the development tree. No updates for any of their claimed supported releases since July. “””If you have users still using FC4, they would have to step up and contribute. But it would be better if everyone would just let Fedora be Fedora and not try to claim that it is something that it is not. There is no tangible support for Fedora Releases after they are “handed off” to Fedora Legacy.įedora has its strengths. Plus, as the above lwn.net link shows, Fedory Legacy… isn’t relevant. How many bugs on bugzilla ever get a response? How many are resolved? How many end up “fixed in rawhide”? It extends to how those bugs are treated. This really goes beyond just the number of bugs upon release. My gripe is not so much with the beta quality, as it is with people trying to claim that it is production quality when it isn’t. (Kudos!)Īnd the end result is about beta quality. The developers want to be able to call it production quality, so they go an extra mile. Putting all that together with what I’ve read of the positions of RH and the Fedora guys, I would say that RH is willing to fund an alpha. So I have a pretty good comparison view of the two distros. (Most are on 4.4.) But I’m currently evaluating FC6. I have moved most of my clients to CentOS. (On machines on firewalled networks only, since FC4 no longer has any support whatsoever: ) When you get right down to it, what really matters is the performance in the field. The engineers are goaled on not just producing enterprise quality software, but driving it through upstream in terms of the community.””” “””We’re convinced that there is a better way to develop software, so what we did is we blew up the notion of an Alpha and we use Fedora as an alpha. (At least this one got responded to after a month, though there has been no activity for the last 2 weeks.)Īnd a bad deal if that usb storage device is a samba share that people depend upon.Įvery so often I hear enough from people who are involved in FC talking about how great their testing framework is, and who vow that they are out to prove that FC is not just RedHat’s beta, that I forget why I switched my clients from Fedora to CentOS in the first place, and try to use FC for something.Īnd I am always reminded of why I stopped using it before, and why this recent quote from Brian Stevens, RedHat’s CTO, is so relevant: This time it is that USB storage devices are not recognized if they are plugged in at boot time. And yet, whenever I try to use FC for something, I end up with a show stopper bug that demonstrates that the testing, if there was any, was ineffectual. You always seem to be going on about how this or that in FC is well tested, using cool methodologies that none of those other distros use. “””Extras was explicitly tested to work on all architectures”””
0 kommentar(er)
