Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Ian Chapman]

Arthur Pemberton wrote:

>>  Of course they do, I'd be surprised to hear if anyone has shipped a 100%
>>  bug free kernel, whether it be Linux, Solaris, AIX, Windows or whatever.
>>  The point though is that RHEL is less of a moving target, if you current
>>  setup works then an update to the kernel is less likely to break
>>  anything, than say Fedora which frequently ships new versions of the
>>  kernel.
> 
> One would hope that that these people complaining abut imperfect
> kernels in RHEL are find these bugs on their test boxes _before_ they
> deploy to production.

Absolutely, testing is good practice (regardless of your server OS 
environment) before live deployment. Having said that, even the most 
diligent of sysadmins can be caught out occasionally, but it stands to 
reason that a new kernel update which contains a couple of bug fixes to 
the same basic version is likely to present fewer surprises than going 
from 2.6.23 -> 2.6.24 for example.

>>  > And the second you add a driver and/or XFS on to RHEL5 you are
>>  > now tainted and *UNSUPPORTED*.
> 
>>  Compared to Fedora where you are *UNSUPPORTED* at the offset?
> 
> is XFS even in the vanilla kernel?

I believe it is, I did a quick search on google and ironically it brough 
up a post about xfs oopsing in 2.6.24 :-P



-- 
Ian Chapman.