FC5 in a commercial product (was Re: Wanna give me a hand debunking this?)
debian at herakles.homelinux.org
Wed Nov 21 21:12:15 UTC 2007
> At 06:46 PM 11/20/2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
> <LM>>>>>The piece that it misses is that there are (so far...) 3
> releases of fedora for every RHEL. As the RHEL cut time approaches,
> fedora becomes increasingly reliable, so RH resources are doing
> something. However, after the cut (which will have pretty much the
> same versions of everything the concurrent fedora has minus some kernel
> features), fedora returns to its wild and crazy ways for its next 2
> Where did FC5 fit in the sequence? If the 3:1 ratio is more or less
> absolute, I'd guess that FC5 was Wild And Crazy #2B and FC6 was Sorta
> Quiet And Stable #2.
> (We use FC6 for our company's Asterisk PBX server and it has been rock
> solid so far.)
> We have a new client who is using FC5 in a commercial coin-operated
> entertainment machine. Now, obviously a software failure in a machine
> like that isn't going to cause any direct injury (might cause indirect
> injury when the user gets pissed and throws a chair through the front of
> the unit) but neither will it help the company's reputation in any
> measurable way.
> I have already told them that using Fedora (any Fedora) in a commercial
> product is probably Not A Good Idea, for reasons elucidated often in
> this and other forums. Are there any articles or white papers written
> by members of the Fedora team, or others who know far more than I ever
> will about this stuff, that I can download and show to our client?
> I have suggested that they move to RHEL or CentOS... any others that are
> specifically targeted to reasonably-high-reliability commercial systems?
> (There are no hard real time requirements in the system.)
> But now, let's back off for a minute and think about this.
> The kernel is pretty much the same across all distros, isn't it? Isn't
> F7's 2.6.21 pretty much the same as RHEL's 2.6.21 or CentOS's 2.6.21
RHEL and clones do not have 2.6.21. I run a RHEL5 clone on my desktop:
16:48 [summer at numbat ~]$ uname -r
05:56 [summer at numbat ~]$
RHEL and clones have 2.6.9.
Fedora change kernel versions, FC7 never had a kernel that old.
> except for some differences in configuration? And are the kernels still
> following the convention of the even-numbered releases (2.4.x, 2.6.x)
> being the stable ones and the odd-numbered releases (2.3.x, 2.5.x) being
> the unstable "development" releases?
No. There is not 2.7, development's done in the mainline kernel these days.
Previously, vendors were expending lots of effort retrofitting
development features to so-called stable kernels.
> If that is true, and understanding that individual kernel releases may
> have problems unique to that release (e.g. 2.6.23 might have broken
> something that worked fine in 2.6.22), what else is it about Fedora that
> makes it not-quite-ready-for-prime-time? The applications and
the enterprise kernels are going to be maintained at that level (though
probably with some retrofitting) for years by all vendors in the
> utilities, and perhaps some of the drivers and daemons, right? So, if
> our client's application isn't using any of the distro's applications,
> and only a minimal number of drivers and daemons (that can be
> individually validated, or perhaps rolled back to previous stable
> versions), what is it about Fedora that's likely to cause trouble?
I would prefer to base from EL because, at any time, its worst quality
is likely to be at least as good as Fedora/OpenSuSE/etc worst. That's
why folk pay for it.
That aside, if they're not going to update firmware it probably doesn't
make a big difference.
Probably they're better working from Debian which has a smaller
footprint, or Gentoo with (I haven't checked, but probably) has a
smaller footprint still, or even a specialist embedded distro.
Years ago, on RHL 7.3 I tried to install ghostscript without X.
Ghostscript pulled in part of X (probably for some fonts). On Gentoo,
one would set up the build system to not support X, and the Ghostscript
package would build without X and so be smaller.
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
Please do not reply off-list
More information about the fedora-list