RH rips again Was: extend EOL for Red Hat Linux 9?

Tue Apr 20 19:11:43 UTC 2004

Mike Bartman wrote:
> At 02:02 PM 4/17/04 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> 
>>At 12:40 4/16/2004, you wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not a linux developer, and I need my system to work at all times, so
>>>Fedora doesn't seem to be a good option either...though I'm not 100%
>>>convinced of that yet, which is why I signed up for this list.  Need more
>>>info.
>>
>>I don't see why you feel that. I use Fedora in exactly the same way I used 
>>Red Hat Linux before it... all the time. My notebook runs Fedora with 
>>servers and all sorts of programs, and FC1 has been extremely stable and 
>>robust since it came out. I have had no... *zero*... problems with it.
> 
> 
> That's good to hear.  Thanks.  I need DNS, NTP, SMTP, FTP, HTML, XDM, and
> Telnet support along with some sort of firewall (ipchains for instance).
> Anything else is going to be for maintaining those, and learning more about
> Linux admin and programming.  RHL 7.3 had all that...it's looking like FC-1
> does too (please tell me if not! :-)
> 
> The other critical need is for something like RHN to keep the above updated
> more or less automatically.  I didn't think Fedora had that, but after
> reading some of the threads here, it looks like it does...just not from the
> same sites (the thread with the pointer to the mirror sites was very
> useful, thanks!).  With RHN I'd get an e-mail saying there was some sort of
> problem and to run up2date to get the patch.  I'm signed up for the
> Fedora-announce list, so that should take care of the notification part,
> and if running up2date (or yum) when that happens will get and install the
> fixes, I'm all set (once I get and install FC-1 anyway :-)
> 
> 
>>>RH seems to think that the only two options are "workstation" and "server".
>>
>>In the Enterprise, that is pretty much true. Which is what RHEL is designed 
>>for.
> 
> 
> Right, but it's a big change from RHL 7.3 Pro, which came with both.
> Neither of RH's current offerings does the job I need done.  One is missing
> the server support, the other is missing the workstation support.  Even if
> I was willing to pay them what they are asking (possible for the
> workstation price, not for the server price), they aren't selling what I
> need anymore.  
> 
> I don't need 24x7 support either...with access to patches, and occasional
> boxed upgrades, I've been happy for several years now.  When I needed to
> configure something, I searched man, HOWTOs, or the net for the info I
> needed, or bought a book (Sendmail from O'Reily for example).  I've never
> called RH, even during the periods where I had free install support right
> after upgrading.  I was almost pure profit for them.  Ah well.
> 
> 
>>>Fedora seems (correct me if I'm wrong please...) to be a development
>>>system...a continuous beta release.  Something that will change all the
>>>time, require constant attention, and may be broken some percentage of the
>>>time. [...]
>>
>>Thank God, your perception is incorrect. Fedora attempts to be as stable as 
>>possible. The only thing that changed is that Red Hat Linux used to have 
>>problems because individuals wanted newer software (2.6 kernel, GNOME 2.4) 
>>released more quickly, and corporations were screaming that they wanted 
>>products to stay still/constant/unchanged for longer. So now RHEL stays 
>>still longer and Fedora attempts to integrate newer technology more quickly.
> 
> 
> I'm with the corporations...if it's working, I'm happy.  I don't need to be
> on the bleeding edge with my LAN server.  
> 
> I've got another machine I use to play games on (Win2K), that has removable
> HDs, and a spare one to play with Linux.  I just swap HDs to switch OSs
> (removable HD trays are about $15 at the local computer shows...install
> them like a HD, then stuff whatever HD you like into the removable
> part...makes backups really easy and fast too, with no "open file"
> problems...I use System Commander's partition copy to duplicate my working
> drive on the backup one.  You get a "hot spare" that way too, and HD is
> cheaper than a pile of tapes anyway).  It has SuSi linux on it at the
> moment, but I think it's going to be getting wiped and have Fedora put on
> it.  If that works out, and I can configure it just like my LAN server,
> I'll swap it in for the LAN server while I do it again with the LAN server
> machine.  That should let me test things, and limit downtime while I build
> and configure the real server.  If the test shows that the system stays up,
> does what I need done, and can update as easily as RHL with RHN, I'll be
> happy and will switch over for good.  
> 
> The comments made here have helped reassure me that FC-1 is stable...though
> all the "I can't get xxx to work...help?" messages are a bit daunting.  I
> just try to remember that the same thing happens with every complex piece
> of software, and in most cases I've never seen most of the problems when I
> ran the very same stuff.  They are user error, or dependent on strange
> hardware combos, or flakey hardware, or whatever, in most cases.  Real
> problems with the software itself seem to generate megabytes of "me too!"
> posts in a hurry, and I haven't seen that here yet.
> 
> 
>>>Can someone who isn't a linux guru set up and maintain
>>>a Fedora system as easily as doing the same thing with RHL?
>>
>>Yes. In fact, more easily, since the installer and other things have 
>>improved a great deal.
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm convinced...at least enough to download (or order CDs) and give it
> a try.  Thanks for the reassurance, and info...both you and everyone else
> who has responded.  I appreciate it!  If you ever have any OpenVMS
> questions, feel free to send them my way! ;-)
> 
> 
>>>How do I get
>>
>>>from my current working RHL 7.3 system to the Fedora system?  Can I just
>>
>>>upgrade?  Or is this a "new build from scratch" situation?  
>>
>>You can upgrade. Having said that, going from 7.3 to Fedora is a very big 
>>leap of three full versions (7 -> 8 -> 9 -> FC1), so I would prefer to 
>>reinstall from scratch.
> 
> 
> Yeah, understood.  I did that when I went from RHL 5.2 to 6.2, and again to
> get to 7.1.  7.3 was an upgrade.  It's a little bit of a hassle, but I can
> handle it...main trick is to keep the old partitions around in case I
> forgot to save any important config info on floppy disk or paper.
> 
> 
>>>I don't mind running up2date frequently, but I don't want to have to get
>>>into it more than that, except very rarely, and only then for educational
>>>purposes.  Basically I want something that works like RHL with RHN...but RH
>>>isn't interested in selling that to me anymore.
>>
>>No, they won't *sell* it to you any more. It is now *only* available for 
>>free. :-)
> 
> 
> I'm starting to see that...they didn't do a very good job of communicating
> that if that's the way it is.  They made it sound like it was RHEL or a
> beta development environment...neither of which is a good choice for
> someone with my situation.  It's sounding like Fedora Core 1 is where I
> should be, and that the beta environment is the FC-2 folks and Secure Linux
> testers (that sounds interesting...for later on :-).
> 
> Thanks again for the info!  I'll give it a try and see how it goes.
> 
> -- Mike Bartman

Just to add my $0.02:

I'm using FC1 on a bunch of load-balanced SMTP servers.  These are
also running clamav-milter and bogofilter via procmail.  The three
servers handle between 12- and 18-million messages per day between them.
No problems so far.  (Load balancing is via an Alteon AD3)

I'm rolling out 8 FC1-based POP3 servers in a load-balanced system.  So
far, only 3 are up (this is a live farm), but I've had no problems with
them either (Load balancing is via an Alteon AD3, also)

Our DNS (BIND9-based) servers (two of them) are also FC1 and handle a
ridiculous number of queries each day with no problems.  (NOT load-
balanced)

Two back-end PostgreSQL servers and two back-end LDAP servers are also
on FC1 with no problems.  (NOT load balanced--using active failover)

My desktop devlopment system is FC1.  My laptop is FC1.  My home systems
are FC1.  My three labrat machines are running FC (one is FC1, one is
FC1-x64, one is FC2-beta).  I've had some problems with FC2-beta, but it
may be hardware related (that's the oldest machine I have).

So far, I'm happy with FC, any minor teething problems aside.  Of
course, I have 25 years of experience in various Unixish systems so I
may be able to resolve any weirdness better than some.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Senior Systems Engineer     rstevens at vitalstream.com -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-   To err is human.  To forgive, a large sum of money is needed.    -
----------------------------------------------------------------------