Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Les Mikesell]

Albert Graham wrote:
>
>>> I have installed hundreds of servers using Fedora and I have to say 
>>> I've had very few problems, kernel issues are not really the fault of 
>>> the Fedora team, sometimes you hit quirks but these do get sorted out.
>>
>> How many years have you maintained these servers and how much damage 
>> does downtime cause?
>>
> None, as they are almost all clustered/load balanced/redundant. 

OK, but you might have mentioned that in your first post which could 
have been taken to mean hundreds of different offices were each relying 
on the one server you set up there.  Fedora is OK if downtime doesn't 
matter.

> Originally I was using RH 2.1 then 3, however, I found myself constantly 
> upgrading components because RH did not want to break "version" 
> compatibility for 5 years, which in my eyes is worse than binary 
> compatibly - Moores law and all that! so Fedora suits me down to the 
> ground.
> 
> The only real issue is a stable kernel for your requirements, everything 
> else is less important, also I have a habit of running everything in 
> user-space so it's a lot easier to virtualize or switch out the 
> underlying OS if required.

How do you virtualize "everything"?  You have to have a real kernel and 
device drivers somewhere. If that isn't an up-to-date fedora then you 
are talking about something very different than it seems here.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com