yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

[Craig White]

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 21:30, John McBride wrote:
> William Hooper wrote:
> > John McBride said:
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>I suspect it is as I feared. The rules appear to have changed (fedora
> >>was originally portrayed as being somewhat stable, but over time more posts
> >>are saying it's not suitable for production, only experimentation stuff or
> >>home use).
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > The Fedora Project from the beginning has been for "Early adopters, enthusiasts, developers" ( http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html ).  Nothing has changed.
> > 
> 
> Actually if you look at the perception of FC on the web, rather than 
> just RTFM on fedora, you will see that a lot of criticism is being 
> levied along the lines of what I've said from the beginning...that FC 
> was originally marketed as something of a "RH9 replacement", a suitable 
> "desktop" machine, etc...but there is a lot of grumbling about the 
> rapidfire releases, esp. when it appears that an update set would serve 
> just as well.
> 
> 
> When I say "marketed", I mean that a lot of people were asking how FC 
> stacked up against RH9, especially for home use. For the most part, FC 
> was discussed as being a suitable replacement.
> 
> A true community project would probably ask the user base for comments 
> regarding the release schedule, but maybe I'd better not go there.
> 
> That's fine if you want to direct me to the FM and claim that's the one 
> and only story, but my gut feeling (shared by a lot of other FC users on 
> the web) is that things *have changed*. Increasingly, the perception is 
> getting out that FC is a hacker's distro...a sandbox for buggy code. 
> That's really different!
> 
> RTFM messages can't make that go away. RHEL is just too complex for my 
> needs...and for now I have to buy this stuff out of my pocket. That will 
> change if I can convince enough people to switch, but right now I can't 
> fork out a couple grand to RH.
> 
> I hope RedHat decides to again make a traditional boxed set with free 
> updates and some way of having a private update server, like I'm doing 
> with rsync and yum.
> 
> Thanks for your input, though. I'm guessing I'll wait for FC3 and hold 
> on to that for as long as possible, then hopefully I'll have the 
> leverage to get funding for RHEL.
----
the problem that you are having with Fedora (and many others) is that
you refuse to consider that your expectations are in direct contrast
with the stated goals of what Fedora's stated objectives are.

If you want RHEL and you don't want to pay for it - there are many RHEL
clones (Google RHEL clone). Fedora is a test playground for what will
(at least hopefully) become the future RHEL and as such, it is much
closer to the bleeding edge, latest packages, and experimental
technologies. The benefit is that you get up to date (at least as of
early release) stuff such as Evolution, Mozilla, etc. and the liability
is that you become early adopters/testers of the wide variety of
hardware that is available and suffer the consequences. Would I put it
on the desktops of a business? Probably not. Would I put it on a
production server? Probably not. Would I use it at home or on my desktop
- definitely.

So you can go on and on about your perceptions, how you feel abandoned
because it ain't RHL but that's not where Fedora is headed.

If you like rsync & yum, you should be all over WBEL.
<http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/>

Craig