| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Looks like a RHEL to meLooks like a RHEL to mePosted Nov 27, 2008 16:26 UTC (Thu) by khim (guest, #9252)In reply to: Looks like a RHEL to me by vonbrand Parent article: Defending the flame of Linux freedom (TechRadar)
Some people use the development branch of Fedora (rawhide) day- to-day because even that level of instability (suddenly X won't start, or your keyboard is gone, but that happens far-in-between) is bearable to them, stable Fedora releases suit others just fine, while still others demand rock-solid nothing-ever-happens stability. Yup. And general purpose distribution should satisfy all of them - or it'll be little used niche experiment. Debian does this (stable/testing/unstable), Ubuntu does this (normal distributions/LTS versions), Fedora/RHEL does this, but Fedora by itself does not.
(Log in to post comments)
Looks like a RHEL to me Posted Nov 28, 2008 2:12 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
You need to consider the Fedora, RHEL and rebuilds as a family of distributions related to each other, rather than complete separate elements.
There is a different contributor base and audience for each of these distributions and in some cases, there is a significant overlap as well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL is a good evidence of that overlap.
Looks like a RHEL to me Posted Nov 28, 2008 22:05 UTC (Fri) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129) [Link] Debian does this (stable/testing/unstable) unstable == fedora rawhide, testing == ? it's much less stable than a Fedora release, and only has a single stream. As for stable that tends to be _roughly_ the same age as a RHEL release, but without any of the support and a fraction of the errata. Ubuntu does this (normal distributions/LTS versions) Ubuntu releases tend to be much more like the old RHL x.0 - 0.2 releases, which might well be what the /. and lwn.net crowd wants (for free). There is no unstable/rawhide, and there is no stable ... you just get something in the middle which is a bit closer to the stable end than a random Fedora release. Canonical/Ubuntu would be worthless without Debian, in much the same way RHEL would be. And general purpose distribution should satisfy all of them - or it'll be little used niche experiment. So apart from all distributions failing this test, so dos Mac OSX and Windows ... are they niche too?
Looks like a RHEL to me Posted Nov 28, 2008 22:28 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
no, the fedora/RHEL combination do not match the debian unstable/testing/stable combination.
on the redhat side what's in fedora may not have any resemblance to what's in RHEL
on the debian side the testing migrates directly to (gets stabilized and renamed to) stable. I don't follow debian closely enough to say how unstable migrates to testing.
on the ubuntu side the LTS releases do closely match the debian stable releases (in terms of lifetime and stability), however the normal releases are somewhere between testing and stable. they don't have the life of stable, but they get significantly more attention than testing.
|
|
||||||||||||