[Cialug] Fedora?

[Matthew Nuzum]

On 7/25/07, Sean McClanahan <sean.mcclanahan at westecnow.com> wrote:
>
> OK, so being the newbie to Linux that I am, I have to ask:
>
> >
> > I know most of you aren't Fedora fans but if it runs Fedora well it
> > should be relatively easy to install your favorite distro.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> What issues are there with Fedora that makes it not a favorite distro?
> I only ask because I tried running Ubuntu (Dapper Dan) first, and
> switched to Fedora 7 on the recommendation of a colleague.  So far, in
> my meager use, it seems to be doing everything I ask of it.
>
>
The history is important to take into consideration I think. I used to be a
big RedHat fan, but jumped ship when RHL (a Linux with great support) was
replaced by Fedora (a Linux w/ poor support). I initially started
investigating CentOS and the like but realized it had even less support than
Fedora because even though it was derived from a well supported Linux (RHEL)
the developers didn't work for the company (RH uses Fedora for their dev and
testing, so a lot of RH employees are active in the Fedora dev process) and
by rebuilding/rebranding the ability to get support from RedHat or ISVs
vanished.

Then, in Oct 2004 Ubuntu, came out, basically another clone of Debian, but
this time, super easy to install and, remarkably, worked extremely well on a
variety of laptops and desktop computers. And even better, the desktop
install fit on one CD and the menus were clean and un-cluttered. It was
supported by the distributor with security updates for 18 mo (double the
time of Fedora at the time) and you could call the distributor for technical
support, something you can't do with Fedora.

Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, employs quite a few of Debian's developers,
similar to the way RedHat employs quite a few of Fedora's core contributors.
They also promised (and, with the Dapper Drake, or 6.06 release, delivered)
a version that would have long term support - security updates for 5 years
on the server and 3 years on the desktop, similar to RHEL except that its
free, you only pay if you want support.

Debian and RedHat Linux have been around for many years and both innovated
quite a few Linux features, but each in different ways. Therefore, it's
common for people to choose a Linux that is either Debian derived or RedHat
derived and stick with it since changing between the two can be difficult.

OK, here's the big fat disclaimer, I work for Canonical, the company that
makes Ubuntu. However, I've only been there for a year and was an adamant
supporter and fan before I started working there.

If I were still a redhat fan I probably wouldn't use Fedora, instead I'd
consider using Oracle's Linux because it has both available support and ISV
support. I'm disgusted that they just cloned RHEL though. I'd also consider
Suse who is an innovator in their own right, but is similar enough to RedHat
to be comfortable.

However, I'm not a Redhat fan. I made the switch from RH to Ubuntu and have
not regretted it in the slightest. I get a good balance of new features on
the desktop by upgrading my laptop to each new release, and stability on my
servers by sticking with 6.06 LTS.

See my blog from August 2004, several months before Ubuntu was released:
http://www.bearfruit.org/blog/2004/08/22/fedora-project-sponsored-by-red-hat
I was really PO'd at the time.

-- 
Matthew Nuzum
newz2000 on freenode
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20070725/2c4551c9/attachment.html