Fedora Core brevity vs server upgrades

[rado]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:32 +0800, John Summerfied wrote:
> > I'd not use FC on a server.
> > 
> > I maintain several machines, some running Debian, a couple run FC3.
> > 
> > I maintain the software remotely - where remotely varies from across the 
> > LAN to via dialup Internet.
> > 
> > apt-get works well and I run it nightly in a cron job to download from a 
> > local mirror. It's easy to configure apt-get to use a particular mirror, 
> > and the initial configuration is done at install time.
> > 
> > I've not discovered a good way to make yum download "hands off." I 
> > _could_ make it download and install, but that's not my style. I like to 
> > control when updates go in.
> > 
> > By default, yum uses a selection of mirrors in convenient locations such 
> > as .fi. .il and goodness knows where else. I'm in Australia, and there 
> > are few locations further away than those.
> 
> It's very easy to make yum use a local mirror. I do this both at home at
> at work. Just point each repo at your local mirror using the "baseurl"
> directive in your yum repository configuration instead of using the
> default mirrorlist.
I seem to have good luck using # yum update from the command line. It
just asked me for y/n one time after it figures out all I need. If I
could just get that to answer "y" I would be in hog heaven there!
> 
> > I see an enormous volume of updates for FC. I've not checked on what 
> > they fix, but I suspect they're mostly not security-related.
> 
> I think most are usability improvements for the desktop, and probably
> not really needed on servers.
> 
> > I'd not like such a volatile selection of software on my server, I'd be 
> > perpetually worried that something will break, and if a server breaks 
> > then the whole enterprise (school in my case) is affected.
> 
> Yes, for example there was a recent util-linux update that
> "broke" (though there was a workaround that could be used) client-side
> NFS mounts to older servers, though an updated update was released the
> day after.
> 
> > If you want a Red Hat-based solution then look at the free download 
> > versions of RH's Enterprise Linux. I have not used one, but I might. I 
> > have been downloading the source updates, and they're relatively few as 
> > compared with FC.
Free RHEL?????????? ok...it's pretty early for me here in Louisiana but
I am getting to feel like a mushroom...being kept in the dark and fed
chit. Wow I have never heard of this now!
> 
> Agreed. Centos looks a good bet.
> 
> Paul.
> -- 
> Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org>

jr
-- 
rado <rado at rivers-bend.com>