Fedora LifeTime

spwbot · #1 7th May 2005, 02:14 PM

Fedora is a cool OS, but i think it life time is very short, to many people can answer this with a "buy RHEL", but i think pay a little anual fee for download updates for a long time like two or may be three years will be cool for the fedora develpment. I think $100 USD per fedora is cool.!
Is my personal point of view.

Best Regards.

ieuuk · #2 7th May 2005, 04:21 PM

if your looking for a longer lifespan use a rhel recompiled version like whitebox linux or cent os. These are effectivly rhel with the name removed and have 5 years of updates promised. oh, and they are free.

owakroeger · #3 7th May 2005, 05:05 PM

For that matter, you can still keep updated with previous versions of Fedora Core with yum, apt/synaptic for quite a while. And if you cron.d your yum or apt/synaptic to run nightly, updates are automatic. Free.
And, as ieuuk mentioned, white box is RHEL with any references to RedHat removed, and is supported. Free.
In effect, we, the users of Fedora Core, are paying RedHat by using Fedora Core, and reporting back with bug reports any problems we encounter so that problems can be resolved for future releases of RHEL.
So, what is there to buy?
owa

SlowJet · #4 7th May 2005, 05:39 PM

Define updates.
If FC3 stops making updates for a package in a FC#, how is CENT OS or anyone else going to deliver updates for the same package in another FC#. Are they going to code and compile several depency pacakages, distribute the source, and what names what names would they use for the package. And what repo.

You guys are full of Bolonga.

SJ

mrtaber · #5 7th May 2005, 05:44 PM

I think they were suggesting switching over to WhiteBox or CentOS from Fedora. This way, they have the same support life cycle as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I've tried CentOS. Very polished, very smooth.

Mark

SlowJet · #6 7th May 2005, 05:51 PM

CENT OS gets its updates from FC not Red HAT. Red Hat does not have to punblish it's speciality code for a package that only it uees. And what proof is there that Red Hat make updates to distributed packages that FC doesn't (for a given FC#?
So again, bolonga.
Once FC stops development on a FC#, that's all there is untill Legacy gets it under wraps and sends out secuitry patches.
The bugs fixes set out by Legacy is a little under defined since they really don't have FC2 quared away yet.
SJ

Unkemptwolf · #7 7th May 2005, 06:05 PM

Actually, for the most part, RH does have to publish it speciality code assuming that code is attatched to an open source program (read: pretty much everything in FC and RHEL). They are required by the GPL to release the source code to any modification they make to these packages, as well as the source for the package. How do you think CentOS and White Box were built in the first place? RH has to release the source code for its packages. Period. (It should be noted that even RH's custom tools, such as NetworkManager, have been GPL'd and are released.)

SlowJet · #8 7th May 2005, 06:15 PM

OK, soruce is source, now who is programing fixes, dependcy packages, and compiling for RHEL and Cent OS 4 these updates that are not in FC3 for the next 18 months or 5 years?

They can only support the versions they have that work with the total system.

But maybe things will change when they catch on the the FC boys have there heads buried in the sand and treat is ground cover like weds in there sandwhichs.

If Cent OS or Whitebox oir anyone elese updates Samba for the (FC3 system scope) then I'll install that and FC can go compile in the sky.

SJ

Unkemptwolf · #9 7th May 2005, 06:23 PM

I believe the Fedora Legacy project is doing this (Updates, fixes, all that stuff) for FC once the end of life is reached, and the CentOS programmers do it themeselves (They just have to recompile the source packages provided by RH for each respective version of RHEL/CentOS, and distribute them).

SlowJet · #10 7th May 2005, 06:34 PM

Yes, but you're not getting the bigger picture.

What ever will be will be, but someone somewhre (besides me) that knows how to code and compile (maybe Cent OS or Whitebox) is not going to wait for FC4 to deleiver the needed updates for 50,000 new Linux users just because that's the way they always done it, do it, and they can't tell the difference between FC1,2,3 as a chaning of events vs. FC4,5,6 as a new chain.

Tastes and Smells like M$ already. It will be another year before the next Windows verison with enough updates to make it stable. It would be as if MS stops delivering any newer version of anything to Windows XP.
MS customers with broken systems would not put up with that and find a new way to do the job.

SJ

Unkemptwolf · #11 7th May 2005, 06:47 PM

I'm sorry but I just don't understand your confusion. The fact is that Fedora Legacy does release updates for two years (I think thats how long it is) after the EOL on an FC release. It is also a fact that CentOS continues to release updates to their various editions (2.X, 3.X, and 4.0). CentOS does not depend on Fedora for updates, it depends on RHEL (I assume at least one of them has a RHEL license), so there is no need for CentOS to wait for Fedora for anything. Indeed, CentOS already has a reputation for releasing updates within 24 hours of the RHEL update.

As far as comparing FC and Windows, that is apples and oranges. FC is a cutting edge disro meant for users who want the latest and greatest. If you want something that is more stable and has a longer life, you turn to CentOS. CentOS has a five year life-span (which is very similar to the windows lifespan), and if you want somethhing even longer that that, look into Debian. It's all about choice.

SlowJet · #12 7th May 2005, 07:19 PM

Well, we are talking A & O's

NO, I think my Windows example applied.

What you are saying if it were to be true is that RHEL and Cent OS 4 are have updates available for samba 3.0.14a.

I think that would be great but I don't think it is true.

You are saying the they both can use Xorg 6.8.2?
They both use Gome 2.10?
They have the lastest tools for e2programs?
The have dump-040b40?

I think they can only fix what they have in their system.

SJ

mrtaber · #13 7th May 2005, 07:35 PM

Exactly, you give up the "latest-and-greatest" features for a more stable lifecycle. Where I work, we did that knowingly, and chose RHEL, fully aware that we were behind the curve. The tradeoff was worth it for us; it may not be for everyone else.

Mark

SlowJet · #14 7th May 2005, 09:01 PM

It isn't about the lastest and greatest features.
It is about a package function that works correctly or not.

Samba between 3.0.10 and 3.0.14a had about 200 bugs and correction fixes. It's th same old samba.
So you think RHEL 4.0 with hundreds of bugs is something you want on your computer?
I think most kids would trun off the SELinux, and install the new packages anyway.
I think those that could code and compile would pass up FC, RHEL and the others if the put their hearts in it.
So what would a non java KDE user neeed FC4+ for? Nothing.
Why bother with RHEL, a chage here and thre, a few compiles, and your're a mile ahead of it.
FC4 is a new animal, it is not added to FC3 but addressing new experimental ideas. Most of the Core is replaced or gone.
Updating from FC3 to FC4 is like updating from WIN 98 to XP. It looks about the same on the outside but it is not.

SJ

owakroeger · #15 8th May 2005, 02:58 PM

Seems we're drifting off the point of the original post. Do we want to pay for guranteed updates for a period of time? Y or N If Y, how much? Pick one.
My response to the original post was no, why should I, when updates are readily available for free.
My response to the last few posts is

Whatever

owa