Fedora philosophy (was ATI video comes out of the closet)

[Les Mikesell]

Ed Greshko wrote:

>> I don't get it. I thought you said they weren't experienced with Fedora.
>>  Are they or aren't they?
> 
> They are experienced enough to know that experimenting with Fedora is not
> valuable when making the decision to go with RHEL.
> 
> Do you have a problem with the English language?

I guess so.  I thought having experience with and experimenting with 
meant rather different things.  And I was asking about the value of a 
person having experience.

>> What do you mean by 'know not to compare'?  FC3 and FC6 were virtually
>> identical to the cuts of RHEL at the corresponding times give or take an
>>  application version or two.  If you are considering a deployment on an
>> upcoming RHEL release, fedora is as close as you are going to get to
>> that code base for testing prior to the release.
> 
> We are not talking about days gone by are we?  I don't live in the past.
> But, maybe you do.

I think we can learn from the past - and from experience.

>>> It seems you think everyone should be a sysadmin?
>> Not at all.  I'm saying that no one should need to be a sysadmin because
>> the distribution should be usable as is.   That fact that this concept
>> seems foreign to you shows just how badly those distributions miss the
>> mark. And everyone certainly shouldn't need to be sysadmins on wildly
>> differing distributions just to be able to use linux on both their
>> desktops and their servers.
> 
> They are usable as is.  However, in a large enterprise, one size does not
> fit all.

What size does firefox 1.x fit?  Those that live in the past?  I'm 
missing why a current and widely used version of a free application 
would be good in one place but not in another assuming, of course, that 
  it is not something likely to crash the machine.

>  Also, in the clients I've worked with, the end user does not even
> install their own OS.  This goes for both the Linux users as well as the
> Windows users.

None of that is really relevant to the point of someone having to 
essentially rebuild a distribution.

> When it comes to Linux the client uses kickstart to provision a system for a
> new hire.  The kickstart profile is based on the new hires job function.  I
> could go on to explain to you how things are done....but I get the feeling
> you won't get it...or will maintain that the IT folks are stupid for doing
> it whatever way they have decided to do it.

Not at all, automation is a good thing.

> I'm sure the fact that adopting these methods has allowed them to increase
> productivity while reducing costs will be of little interest or value in
> your way of thinking.
> 
> Never mind.

Wouldn't it reduce costs even more if the IT dept you mentioned that was 
replacing app versions in the distribution didn't have to do that?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com