[PLUG] Upgrading from Red Hat 7.3 to ...
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
Sat Dec 13 11:17:01 UTC 2003
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Evan Heidtmann wrote:
> Fedora certainly offers the vastly preferable option of upgrading
> the current system rather than completely reinstalling. However,
> the bleeding-edge aspect of Fedora sounds ominous. Is the
> bleeding-edge stuff just about scaring server admins into buying
> RHEL, or is there some truth to it?
Traditionally, when Red Hat released a version of its free Linux
distribution, it shipped with newer software, some of it quite
bleeding edge (e.g., libc-6, the oft-maligned gcc 2.96, NPTL). In that
regard, Red Hat always resembled Debian testing more than Debian
stable.
The Fedora releases change things in a few ways:
* Fedora comes with no support for Red Hat, Inc.
Maybe this is a problem for some people, but I've never heard Debian
users grumble about a lack of support from Debian, Inc. :-) Same
thing with Gentoo, Slackware, ... We get support from mailing
lists, IRC, web pages, etc.
* The upgrade cycle for Fedora will be more frequent: 2-3 times per
year rather than once per year.
This might pose problems for admins in charge of production systems.
It used to be that you could wait for a new Red Hat release to get
put through a shakedown before upgrading. With Fedora, Red Hat won't
be providing errata for older releases, so either you upgrade to
each new Fedora Core version or you take the responsibilty for
patching stuff yourself.
If you're the sort of admin who's comfortable running, say, Gentoo or
Debian testing on your server, then Fedora will probably work without
a hitch.
If long, long uptimes are really crucial, then Fedora isn't the way to
go.
--Paul Heinlein <heinlein at madboa.com>
More information about the PLUG
mailing list