[TriLUG] Which Fedora Core...

Dave Sorenson dave at logicalgeek.com
Fri Nov 18 10:01:37 EST 2005


I think he means that Cent is basically a recompile of Red Hat 
enterprise source with certain copyrighted artwork and questionable 
license packages removed (Mp3 support for one, nothing critical). RHEL 
has a VERY long testing and support cycle. Once it's released very few 
changes are made to the distro for a long time (security updates are 
provided however). Cent has a great track record in turning around the 
updates for it's releases usually very soon after the official RHEL updates.

FC is Red Hats beta test for software that will eventually make it's way 
into RHEL. As such, it tends to have the latest greatest versions of 
software, sometimes too new. With a 6 month release cycle, packages are 
added and dropped fairly frequently. Official security updates are not 
available as long either. Updates are available from the legacy project, 
but I have found that that only works for a while. The structure of FC 
brings newer packages in new combinations and that is not always a 
recipe for stability. I switched all my servers to Cent and would not go 
back to FC in a production environment

Dave S.

Matt Pusateri wrote:
> Why is CentOS better tested and stable?
>
> Matt P.
>
>
> On Fri, November 18, 2005 9:30 am, David McDowell wrote:
>   
>> First, FC1 and 2 are legacy now, 3 probably will be soon.  (You said
>> "foot the bill", I hope you are not going to pay for Fedora Core!!)
>> :)  If you want stability, AND a Red Hat like environment without
>> cost, why not go with something like CentOS?  http://www.centos.org
>> and get CentOS 4.2, which is derived from RHEL 4 U2, but free.  Also
>> see #centos on freenode.  Unless you have a particular reason for
>> going with Fedora Core 4, I wouldn't do it.  In FC4, you will have
>> bleeding edge software vs better tested and stable software that you
>> would find in CentOS if you are planning to run a server and not a
>> workstation.  Shelf life is also a consideration.  With Fedora Core,
>> expect 6 month release cycle (although this isn't written in stone)
>> but with CentOS (b/c its roots are RHEL) the release cycle is long,
>> releases are stable and thoroughly tested, and the CentOS community is
>> very active.  I use all CentOS for my servers at home and in
>> production at work.  If I want a linux workstation, then I'd have to
>> choose between FC4 and Ubuntu 5.10 and I'd probably choose Ubuntu if
>> it wasn't full time use, FC4 it was full time use, depending on my
>> needs, I may even choose CentOS for a workstation (if I don't want to
>> game and do bleeding edge stuff which I may or may not care about)
>>
>> hope this all helps... I get wordy sometimes.  :)
>> David McD
>>
>>
>> On 11/18/05, Russ Jones <russ at virante.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> After giving up on my multiple-crashes-a-day-old-Red-Hat-server, Ive
>>> decided to foot the bill to have our server imaged with a fedora
>>> core. I
>>> have the option of FC 1,2,3 or 4 - same price. 3 and 4 would take
>>> them a
>>> little longer to do (2 hours instead of 30-45 minutes).
>>>
>>> Any opinions - looking for stability primarily, as we dont do
>>> anything
>>> on this server that is ultra processor intensive.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your opinions!
>>>
>>> Russ
>>> --
>>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
>>> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> TriLUG mailing list        :
>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
>> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   



More information about the TriLUG mailing list