Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Albert Graham]

Hi Les,

I'm sorry that you don't understand my response, but I did actually take 
the time to visit the reference website you posted that "slated" the 
Fedora a distribution, It was clear to me that, that guy does not have a 
clue and is getting what he deserves, surely you understand that you 
should not be taking his advice - that would be a case of the blind 
leading the blind.

Best regards,

Albert.

Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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.
>