Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 13, 2011 2:56 UTC (Thu) by pranith (subscriber, #53092)
Parent article: Fast distributions and slow servers

This seems to support the argument Ubuntu has that both
the community distro and the official distro being same has some advantages.

Why does Red Hat not choose one release of Fedora and release that as a
version of RHEL?(after all the rigorous testing)

This would atleast give the option for Fedora to be hosted on RHEL if it
wants to eat its own dogfood

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 13, 2011 3:23 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (guest, #24648) [Link]

> Why does Red Hat not choose one release of Fedora and release that as a version of RHEL?(after all the rigorous testing)

Actually, they do. IIRC RHEL4 was rebranded FC3 (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 13, 2011 3:51 UTC (Thu) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906) [Link]

> Why does Red Hat not choose one release of Fedora and release that as a
version of RHEL?(after all the rigorous testing)

They basically do this. Which is also why we in Fedora Infrastructure don't really see a major benefit to running an OS just because the word "Fedora" is in /etc/redhat-release. It all started in Fedora and fed into RHEL. It's a slightly liberal view of dogfood but not so crazy.

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 24, 2011 16:54 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

If Canonical were actually building a successful self-supporting business around their cadence based distribution model..then that would be an indicator that the choice to tie their enterprise/business releases into their consumer desktop release cycle has been successful choice. But that is not the case. There are trade-offs in both approaches, but ultimately a business venture has to find a way to be self-sustaining to be considered a successful business.

-jef