Hello, all. New to list.
I hope this isn't an FAQ. I looked at the FAQs I could find, and didn't see it.
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
Thanks all in advance for replies.
Mike
Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
First off, understand Fedora Core 2 was a "new version." It was a radical change from Red Hat Linux 8, 9 and Fedora Core 1 which made up the previous version. Fedora Core 3 is far more reliable, because it is the next revision of the same version as Fedora Core 2.
It's like saying Red Hat Linux 7.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 7.0, Red Hat Linux 5.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 5.0, etc... Revisions meant everything in Red Hat Linux, and I now they are gone with Fedora Core.
So it's not that you are "wrong," it's more like "you weren't warned." With Fedora Core, they've taken away revisioning, so there's just no way to know.
I purposely did _not_ upgrade to Fedora Core 2 from Fedora Core 1 until Fedora Core 3 was almost out, and in some cases, I waited on Fedora Core 3. Same deal now for Fedora Core 4, I'm waiting on Fedora Core 5 instead, sticking with Fedora Core 3 for now.
It's no different than when people waited for Red Hat Linux 5.1, Red Hat Linux 7.1, Red Hat Linux 9 (being the next revision after 8), etc... You almost _never_ run the "first .0 revision" of any new 6-month Red Hat release.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment.
Fedora Core 3 is typically a "yum upgrade" away. Just install the new "fedora-release" RPM for Fedora Core 3 and run "yum upgrade" (not "yum update"). There can be a few issues, but for the most part, it works well.
Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless,
So is Fedora Core. Make no mistake, the people paid by Red Hat who work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages _also_ maintain the _same_ Fedora Core packages. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just what we get after several revisions of Fedora Core, and the focus is far more static when they do.
If Red Hat didn't pay people to work on Fedora Core as part of their regular function for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as the quality of the former suffers, so would the latter. Because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the 18-month version, based on the 2-3 revisions of the 6-month released Red Hat distribution fka Red Hat Linux now Fedora Core.
Most of the early naysayers on Fedora Core have been silenced by the quality of Fedora Core 1 and, even more so, Fedora Core 3. Fedora Core 5 should be an improvement from Fedora Core 4, just as Fedora Core 2 was.
I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Oh, definitely. I maintain Debian and Gentoo systems, but if you're coming from a Red Hat distro, RHEL/CentOS is virtually *0* change from RHL/FC.
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
You'd want to upgrade to FC3 before attempting an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. The latter are _subsets_ in packages compared to the former, so you're going to have issues.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Thank you very much for your kind response.
I'd like to re-iterate that nothing I have posted is intended to be a criticism of the Fedora Core Project, or any of the people working on it.
I've found the FC people to be very cordial. (I've been somewhat active on the FC mail echo.)
However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level". I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around underneath my development. I'm more interested in Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than in getting it to work.
Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
First off, understand Fedora Core 2 was a "new version." It was a radical change from Red Hat Linux 8, 9 and Fedora Core 1 which made up the previous version. Fedora Core 3 is far more reliable, because it is the next revision of the same version as Fedora Core 2.
Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch, and not on stability, and it is definitely considered that the users are also testers.
It's like saying Red Hat Linux 7.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 7.0, Red Hat Linux 5.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 5.0, etc... Revisions meant everything in Red Hat Linux, and I now they are gone with Fedora Core.
I wouldn't call any of those beta. They are products, not test versions. I was using the "alpha test is done by the engineers, beta test is done by the users" distinction. Some might call it "acceptance test" rather than beta.
I don't want to be a tester, I want to be a user.
So it's not that you are "wrong," it's more like "you weren't warned." With Fedora Core, they've taken away revisioning, so there's just no way to know.
AFAICT, every release of FC is, and is intended to be, a beta test.
I purposely did _not_ upgrade to Fedora Core 2 from Fedora Core 1 until Fedora Core 3 was almost out, and in some cases, I waited on Fedora Core 3. Same deal now for Fedora Core 4, I'm waiting on Fedora Core 5 instead, sticking with Fedora Core 3 for now.
I found that FC3 was unable to install on a machine last Sunday. It apparently is completely unable to deal with a disc which has an existing partition, and unallocated space. That does not seem reasonable for an installer.
It's no different than when people waited for Red Hat Linux 5.1, Red Hat Linux 7.1, Red Hat Linux 9 (being the next revision after 8), etc... You almost _never_ run the "first .0 revision" of any new 6-month Red Hat release.
That's pretty much been true in the industry. Some of us remember MSDOS 4.0 and the revision to 4.1 which came out less than six (6) months later.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment.
Fedora Core 3 is typically a "yum upgrade" away. Just install the new "fedora-release" RPM for Fedora Core 3 and run "yum upgrade" (not "yum update"). There can be a few issues, but for the most part, it works well.
Really? I use this machine for my job, doing software development. I want something which works, not something that, for the most part, works. Not a criticism of FC in general, nor of FC3 in particular.
Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless,
So is Fedora Core. Make no mistake, the people paid by Red
I am aware of that. That is the reason I stated it. My presumption (and it *is* a presumption) is that it would be much easier to "upgrade" (if that is what it is) from the Fedora Core Project to RHEL than to some other package.
Hat who work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages _also_ maintain the _same_ Fedora Core packages. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just what we get after several revisions of Fedora Core, and the focus is far more static when they do.
My point exactly. FC is a sort of pre-QA "release". I'd like something a little more "post-QA" and also changing much less frequently. I'd like something which I could run for a couple of years before feeling an urge to update. If even then.
If Red Hat didn't pay people to work on Fedora Core as part of their regular function for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as the quality of the former suffers, so would the latter. Because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the 18-month version, based on the 2-3 revisions of the 6-month released Red Hat distribution fka Red Hat Linux now Fedora Core.
Most of the early naysayers on Fedora Core have been silenced by the quality of Fedora Core 1 and, even more so, Fedora Core 3. Fedora Core 5 should be an improvement from Fedora Core 4, just as Fedora Core 2 was.
We'll see. I am somewhat resistant to "churn". I want a stable development environment more than I want the latest shinyest bugs. Not that I claim that FC is buggy. There are some show- stoppers for me in re. FC4. SELinux is part of it. Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall.
If I want to "play" with a different version, I'll burn Knoppix or Kanotix and fiddle. But not with my development machine, thanks.
I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Oh, definitely. I maintain Debian and Gentoo systems, but if you're coming from a Red Hat distro, RHEL/CentOS is virtually *0* change from RHL/FC.
I had hoped that might be the case. But on the FC echo, I was warned away from that. I was strongly advised to backup, clean the disc, and re-install from scratch, or consequences too terrible to contemplate might happen. Because it's a totally different thing.
Didn't make sense to me, but anyway...
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
You'd want to upgrade to FC3 before attempting an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. The latter are _subsets_ in packages compared to the former, so you're going to have issues.
Erm? What do you mean by "issues"? In what way is CentOS a subset of FC2 or FC3? I didn't do an "everything" install of FC2. I did include several of the development packages, and the OpenOffice package, along with both GNOME and KDE. So far, I've only used GNOME on this machine, though I have used KDE on a Debian release.
I'd rather not run SELinux at all. I spent a few tens of messages on why to run SELinux, and the upshot of it was that the answer was "Because it is there."
I also didn't like the fact that the FC4 install I did on Sunday (on a machine I built up just for the purpose of experimenting with upgrading from FC2) put my single disc into a virtual volume without even asking.
Most of the "extra" features seem not to be something I have much desire for. The extra security especially is mostly useless for my desktop which sits behind a router firewall, and nothing else connected to the "lan" side. I understand the need for such types of things in servers, especially those with external connections which are open, but my single-user deskto system has much more relaxed requirements.
So, what issues do I need to investigate?
Mike
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Thank you very much for your kind response.
I'd like to re-iterate that nothing I have posted is intended to be a criticism of the Fedora Core Project, or any of the people working on it.
I've found the FC people to be very cordial. (I've been somewhat active on the FC mail echo.)
However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level". I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around underneath my development. I'm more interested in Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than in getting it to work.
---- I think someone suggested it before in a way but it seems that Fedora is on an every other pattern.
FC-1 was the last of the 2.4 kernels and very stable, pretty much a 9.1 thing.
FC-2 was the first with 2.6 kernel and SELinux and early GCC 3 and suffered a bit.
FC-3 pretty much fixed all that didn't work well in FC-2 and is certain to be a candidate for longevity in fedoralegacy
FC-4 is pushing the envelope again, GCC-4 is a big one but they have adopted some beta versions of stuff that isn't entirely stable.
That is the stated agenda for Fedora. Still, for my desktop, I am running Fedora...but not for servers.
Craig
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Craig White wrote:
However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level". I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around underneath my development. I'm more interested in Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than in getting it to work.
That would be CentOS, IMHO. I went through this this weekend. I tried Fedora Core 4, Ubuntu, etc. on a new laptop I bought for doing development out and about.
That is the stated agenda for Fedora. Still, for my desktop, I am running Fedora...but not for servers.
Craig
Yeah, I just can't do Fedora. Partly because of the upgrade cycle, and partly because of stability issues, beta software, etc. I tried it this weekend. I even tried Ubuntu (which is better IMHO), but eventually my laptop got slapped with CentOS and... what do you know... CentOS is a fine laptop OS as long as you don't need stuff like hibernation.
Preston
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I'd like to re-iterate that nothing I have posted is intended to be a criticism of the Fedora Core Project, or any of the people working on it.
I didn't take your statements as anything but professional and considerate.
I've found the FC people to be very cordial. (I've been somewhat active on the FC mail echo.)
Many of them, at least the Red Hat employees, also work on RHEL too.
However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level".
Which was the same argument in the Red Hat Linux era too. Red Hat's continual and unofficial attitude was "we support the last .2 until the next .2 comes out." Unfortunately, popularity resulted in expectations, etc...
This first resulted in Red Hat Linux 6.2"E" -- the first Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It went largely ignored. SuSE introduced SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 and the industry liked a separate product, even if it was still based on the same packages as the "regular" one.
The final straw was probably when people were still standardizing on Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 after they came out, let alone expected Red Hat Linux 6.2 to be supported forever (which Red Hat did for over 3 years). So eventually Red Hat laid down the "1 year updates only" gauntlet once Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 came out (later to be known as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 on-ward).
SuSE has similar support limitations, up to 2 years although they have not always made that. Which is why SLES 7 came out with 5+ years of support, matching what RHL6.2"E" had, which Red Hat started to match with RHAS 2.1 late in the RHL7 series.
I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around underneath my development. I'm more interested in Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than in getting it to work.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including the Red Hat Desktop volume licenses, is your ideal solution then when you want a subscription and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). When you don't, CentOS is the natural choice since it is not only built from RHEL SRPMS almost verbatim (sans trademark issues), but CentOS maintains a 1:1 package rebuild.
CentOS Plus, Extras, etc... offer replacements, additions, etc... beyond CentOS, which mirrors RHEL. So if you go CentOS, you are getting the exact same software as RHEL.
Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch, and not on stability,
Not true, not true at all. Fedora Core is modeled after the same Red Hat Linux model.
2 Months Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) release 2 Months Fedora Test (fka Red Hat Beta) release 2 Months Fedora Core (fka Red Hat Linux) release ======== 6 Months
Development (fka Rawhide) is when the packages are released. Test (fka Beta) is when the packages are integration tested. Core (fka Linux) is when the integration testing reaches a threadhold.
The first 6-month release is always the PITA. Red Hat changes the GCC, GLibC and/or kernel. This _breaks_ a lot of compatibility. They did it with Red Hat Linux 4.0, then again with 5.0, then again with 6.0, then again with 7.0 and once more with 8.0. 5.0 and 7.0 clearly had the most complaints.
People are still talking about 5.0, which was due to the GLibC 2 change back away from the "LibC" forks of GLibC 1 to GLibC 2. Every argument against GLibC 2 was made, and Red Hat didn't care, because GLibC 2 was much better for a variety of reasons. Same deal with 7.0 which was due to the GCC 3 (2.96) adoption that forced everyone to start writing ANSI standard C++. There were even some complaints from a non-Red Hat employee working on GCC, when the entire plan for GCC 3 had been Cygnus' well before Red Hat's acquisition.
Then every 2-4 Fedora Core releases or so, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release is forked, enters Beta, etc... This is how Red Hat Enterprise Linux was developed from Red Hat Linux prior. There used to be a "stable .2 community" that was then mirrored in the "enterprise." At first, again, this was the "single product" model with the Red Hat Linux 6.2 "Enterprise" release -- RHL 6.2 + SLAs. But the success of SLES changed Red Hat's marketing approach, they had to follow SuSE's lead.
2+2+2 = 6-month "Community" Linux 6+6+6 = 18-month "Enterprise" Linux
Again, the 2+2+2 model was not only proven in Red Hat Linux, it's not only still used in Fedora Core, but as I mentioned, Red Hat Linux "hit" the 6 months continually (give or take 2-3 weeks) -- over _14_ releases! It's the proven development model. And the complaints of releases like Fedora Core 2 and, now, Fedora Core 4 were _not_ unheard of in Red Hat Linux.
and it is definitely considered that the users are also testers.
Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before.
I wouldn't call any of those beta. They are products, not test versions. I was using the "alpha test is done by the engineers, beta test is done by the users" distinction. Some might call it "acceptance test" rather than beta.
But how is Red Hat Linux 7.0 different than Fedora Core 2 in approach?
I don't want to be a tester, I want to be a user.
Then either: 1. Follow the 6-month Fedora Core releases with scrutiny, _or_ 2. Consider the 18-month RHEL releases
This is _no_ different in Fedora Core than was with Red Hat Linux prior. My only complaint continues to be the lack of revisions, but that started with Red Hat Linux 9, not Fedora Core. Same thing with the 1 year of support, started with Red Hat Linux 7.3, not Fedora Core.
Of course, there is _still_ Fedora Legacy that is pumping out updates for Red Hat Linux 7.3. There are no guarantees of anything when you get it for no cost. Everything costs, be it in donation of time to people in CentOS, or otherwise.
AFAICT, every release of FC is, and is intended to be, a beta test.
Then by the same definition, so was Red Hat Linux.
If Fedora Core is "worse" than Red Hat Linux, then the quality of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will suffer as well.
Some _have_ complained that RHEL 4 has gone down from RHEL 3. But then again, RHEL 3 did improve over RHEL 2.1. Now why is that?
It really has more to do with the fact that the 2.4 kernel, GCC 3 and other components were immature with RHL7.2-7.3/RHEL2.1, but more mature with RHL9-FC1/RHEL3. Same deal now with FC3/RHEL4, 2.6 kernel and newer GCC is not as mature, but it looks like FC5/RHEL5 will be a more stable 2.6 kernel and a better GCC 4.
Red Hat has its 2+2+2 -> 6+6+6 cycle.
The quality of RHEL is dependent on FC, just like RHL prior. RHEL offers many benefits over FC, just like RHL prior. Nothing is changed but names and lack of certified apps.
Other than RHL 6.2 "E", Red Hat _never_ offered SLAs on RHL. And there was _never_ an official support policy on RHL, and only about a year or so (basically the "last .2 until the next .2") was followed until RHL7 -- which prompted Red Hat to make a "formal policy" later on, and only 1 year.
I found that FC3 was unable to install on a machine last Sunday. It apparently is completely unable to deal with a disc which has an existing partition, and unallocated space. That does not seem reasonable for an installer.
You'll find the _same_ Anaconda installer in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4). ;-> At this point, I don't know if it's worth saying anything, because you are going to believe and assert what you want.
I'm not saying that to enfuriate you. I'm just saying that because you'll probably run into the same issues again, and then just blame CentOS 4 too.
That's pretty much been true in the industry. Some of us remember MSDOS 4.0 and the revision to 4.1 which came out less than six (6) months later.
Red Hat has almost _always_ led the adoption of new GCC, GLibC and kernel releases. But in the Red Hat Linux era before Red Hat Linux 9, they gave us some "warning" that a ".0" release was out. Anytime you change something, you break lots of things.
But at least the only people who complained are the ones who didn't understand the .0-.1-.2 model of the 6-6-6 month cycle.
Now with Fedora Core, you "have to do your homework" to discover when GCC, GLibC and kernel changes are made. I do that, and even have a _full_history_ going back Red Hat Linux 4.0 -- 20 revisions! According to your "epoch" viewpoint, that means that there have been 20 betas, because with exception of RHL9->FC1, Red Hat has continually made the 6 month mark.
Really? I use this machine for my job, doing software development. I want something which works, not something that, for the most part, works. Not a criticism of FC in general, nor of FC3 in particular.
If you're doing software development, I'd almost push you towards Gentoo. It all depends on what you are doing.
[ BTW, don't assume you're not talking to the Linux SME of a $30.5B defense division who has to deal with development systems of the next- generation defense systems. I know all about maintaining development systems, making sure they are standardized, etc... ]
If you are looking for a system where the updates are _minimal_, meaning fixes are backported instead of just replaced with newer versions, then you want an "enterprise" distribution like RHEL or SLES.
If you are looking for a system where the updates are regular, bringing new features, then you want something like Fedora Core or, depending on how "current" you want things, Gentoo.
When I need "fluid" system changes during leading-edge R&D cycles, I'm finding Gentoo is best. When I need "static" system changes when I'm providing a development platform to, say, the USAF for production systems that have already been developed, then I'm definitely getting them a Red Hat Desktop (RHEL WS in volume license) license/subscription.
I am aware of that. That is the reason I stated it. My presumption (and it *is* a presumption) is that it would be much easier to "upgrade" (if that is what it is) from the Fedora Core Project to RHEL than to some other package.
Not really. You can't upgrade SuSE Linux to SuSE Enterprise Linux Server either. It's really more about lack of packages in the latter, removed components, etc... It's a nightmare.
My point exactly. FC is a sort of pre-QA "release".
Not true.
Every package starts with Development fka Rawhide. Then it moves to Test.
In many cases, packages are adopted by RHEL and FC simultaneously.
I'd like something a little more "post-QA"
Then you want RHEL (or CentOS). RHEL is the most anal on moving in changes, far more than FC. It's not to say that FC is "less tested," there's just no guarantee of "maturity."
If you want, you can _easily_ "hold back" FC changes to get the same. When I do training, one thing I specialize in is "configuration management" of Fedora Core in comparison to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We go through release dates of Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages -- and see over 80% are the same version and date.
and also changing much less frequently.
The key here is how they change.
RHEL will backport more to older versions, whereas Fedora Core _might_ use the newer version. But in many cases (almost all), the _exact_ same package in Fedora Core goes to RHEL -- sometimes simultaneously (for a serious vunerability).
I'd like something which I could run for a couple of years before feeling an urge to update. If even then.
Well, I've still got Red Hat Linux 7.3 systems getting updates from Fedora Legacy. It all depends on what you trust.
We'll see. I am somewhat resistant to "churn". I want a stable development environment more than I want the latest shinyest bugs.
Then you can either run the current, most mature version of Fedora Core, such as Fedora Core 3. Or you can run CentOS. I'd say CentOS, but I don't know what kind of development you are doing (I might even push you towards Gentoo, depending).
But to base it on Fedora Core 2 would be just as bad as Red Hat Linux 5.0 and Red Hat Linux 7.0 -- because that's _exactly_ what Fedora Core 2 was like. It's the first ".0" of an +2 version -- major, major changes, just like Red Hat Linux 5.0 was over Red Hat Linux 4.x, and Red Hat Linux 7.0 over Red Hat Linux 6.x. Red Hat Linux 6.x was more evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 5.x, and Red Hat Linux 8.0, 9 and Fedora Core 1 were more evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 7.x.
It's really all about the history, and the changes in Fedora Core 2 were not a surprise at all.
Not that I claim that FC is buggy. There are some show- stoppers for me in re. FC4.
Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 3.
SELinux is part of it.
SELinux is in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4), based on the work in Fedora Core 2 and 3.
SELinux is not in RHEL 3 (and CentOS 3), because they are based on the work of Red Hat Linux 9 and Fedora Core 1.
Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall.
??? This has nothing to do with Fedora Core.
Again, I will warn you, if you are making such complaints about Fedora Core, you're not going to find much more in Red Hat Enterprise Linux either (which CentOS is based on).
If I want to "play" with a different version, I'll burn Knoppix or Kanotix and fiddle. But not with my development machine, thanks.
I'm still scratching my head.
Understand I would be _more_than_happy_ to see you come over to CentOS. But what I'm afraid of, based on your above comments, is that the same complaints you have on Fedora Core will follow you to CentOS too.
So all you will accomplish is a wipe and new install of CentOS 4, only to be disappointed. Which is why I said you might want to try an "yum upgrade" to Fedora Core 3 first.
I had hoped that might be the case. But on the FC echo, I was warned away from that. I was strongly advised to backup, clean the disc, and re-install from scratch, or consequences too terrible to contemplate might happen. Because it's a totally different thing.
No, I meant to administer/support it. You _will_ probably want to re-install. RHEL and RHL (now FC) have completely different priorities.
Erm? What do you mean by "issues"? In what way is CentOS a subset of FC2 or FC3?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for the original Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E", has always been a more static, "subset" of support from Fedora Core, just like Red Hat Linux prior. Much of it is due to locale support, but the main driver is the "what we ship, we support" attitude of Red Hat.
With guaranteed SLAs as slow as 4 hours, RHEL is designed to be as minimal as possible.
CentOS does have it's CentOS Plus and Extras repositories, and there are other helpful repositories like DAG -- but if you're complaining about installer problems with FC3, then you're in for a world of issues if you try to upgrade FC2 to CentOS 4.
Which is why I said that you might try Fedora Core 3 first from either the CD (recommended), or "yum upgrade" first.
I didn't do an "everything" install of FC2. I did include several of the development packages, and the OpenOffice package, along with both GNOME and KDE. So far, I've only used GNOME on this machine, though I have used KDE on a Debian release. I'd rather not run SELinux at all. I spent a few tens of messages on why to run SELinux, and the upshot of it was that the answer was "Because it is there."
You can disable it. It's in CentOS 4 as well, because it's based on FC2/3.
I also didn't like the fact that the FC4 install I did on Sunday (on a machine I built up just for the purpose of experimenting with upgrading from FC2) put my single disc into a virtual volume without even asking.
Use the "expert" mode during install. It is listed in the boot options pages.
Also note that Fedora Core 4 is clearly more of a ".0" early adopters / "we changes some things" release. Not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 2 was, but I'd recommend an upgrade to Fedora Core 3 right now.
Most of the "extra" features seem not to be something I have much desire for. The extra security especially is mostly useless for my desktop which sits behind a router firewall, and nothing else connected to the "lan" side. I understand the need for such types of things in servers, especially those with external connections which are open, but my single-user deskto system has much more relaxed requirements. So, what issues do I need to investigate?
Well, I've made my recommendations and I'm sure people will just view me as a "Fedora apologist." I'm just trying to avoid you coming to CentOS and having the same complaints (possibly more).
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I'd like to re-iterate that nothing I have posted is intended to be a criticism of the Fedora Core Project, or any of the people working on it.
I didn't take your statements as anything but professional and considerate.
Tone of voice is so difficult to convey with a text medium :)
[snip]
However, I'm rather tired of the continual pressure applied by them to "upgrade" to the next "level".
Which was the same argument in the Red Hat Linux era too. Red Hat's continual and unofficial attitude was "we support the last .2 until the next .2 comes out." Unfortunately, popularity resulted in expectations, etc...
I wasn't aware of that. I once installed RHL 6.1 on a few machines and used it for several months, but I never had any contact after that.
[snip RHL and SuSE having lots of churn]
I'd like a stable platform which doesn't shift around underneath my development. I'm more interested in Linux as a tool, than as an object of interest in and of itself. I'm more interested in using it than in getting it to work.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including the Red Hat Desktop volume licenses, is your ideal solution then when you want a subscription and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). When you don't, CentOS is the natural choice since it is not only built from RHEL SRPMS almost verbatim (sans trademark issues), but CentOS maintains a 1:1 package rebuild.
Ok. That is what I sort of expected. I don't need to pay for hand-holding. But I do need support from time to time. CentOS sounds like ideal, nearly. But see below.
[snip]
Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch, and not on stability,
Not true, not true at all. Fedora Core is modeled after the same Red Hat Linux model.
2 Months Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) release 2 Months Fedora Test (fka Red Hat Beta) release 2 Months Fedora Core (fka Red Hat Linux) release ======== 6 Months
Development (fka Rawhide) is when the packages are released. Test (fka Beta) is when the packages are integration tested. Core (fka Linux) is when the integration testing reaches a threadhold.
I suppose you meant "threshhold". I'm accustomed to somewhat different language conventions. I've heard
alpha engineer/internal only testing beta customer testing release believed stable
or
engineer test engineer testing programs integration test engineers testing whole load verification test QA testing whole load against rqmts acceptance test customer test at live site before accepting roll-out (also called FVO or Field Verification Office) release/roll-out release to general public
If at any point, any defects are found, then the load gets evaluated and if the defects are deemed unacceptable, (no acceptable work-around) then the load is retracted, reworked, and then starts over at an earlier stage.
[snip]
Again, the 2+2+2 model was not only proven in Red Hat Linux, it's not only still used in Fedora Core, but as I mentioned, Red Hat Linux "hit" the 6 months continually (give or take 2-3 weeks) -- over _14_ releases! It's the proven development model. And the complaints of releases like Fedora Core 2 and, now, Fedora Core 4 were _not_ unheard of in Red Hat Linux.
and it is definitely considered that the users are also testers.
Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before.
Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking if I intend to continue using RH at all.
I wouldn't call any of those beta. They are products, not test versions. I was using the "alpha test is done by the engineers, beta test is done by the users" distinction. Some might call it "acceptance test" rather than beta.
But how is Red Hat Linux 7.0 different than Fedora Core 2 in approach?
I don't know. I am new to Linux. I'm accustomed to Solaris. We weren't asked to upgrade every 6 mos with Solaris. More like every 4-5 years.
[snip]
AFAICT, every release of FC is, and is intended to be, a beta test.
Then by the same definition, so was Red Hat Linux.
Ok. Then RHL is beta test.
[snip]
You'll find the _same_ Anaconda installer in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4). ;-> At this point, I don't know if it's worth saying anything, because you are going to believe and assert what you want.
I'm not saying that to enfuriate you. I'm just saying that because you'll probably run into the same issues again, and then just blame CentOS 4 too.
I'm not getting angry at anyone or anything.
And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine.
[snip]
But at least the only people who complained are the ones who didn't understand the .0-.1-.2 model of the 6-6-6 month cycle.
Now with Fedora Core, you "have to do your homework" to discover when GCC, GLibC and kernel changes are made. I do that, and even have a _full_history_ going back Red Hat Linux 4.0 -- 20 revisions! According to your "epoch" viewpoint, that means that there have been 20 betas, because with exception of RHL9->FC1, Red Hat has continually made the 6 month mark.
Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough.
Really? I use this machine for my job, doing software development. I want something which works, not something that, for the most part, works. Not a criticism of FC in general, nor of FC3 in particular.
If you're doing software development, I'd almost push you towards Gentoo. It all depends on what you are doing.
I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists.
[ BTW, don't assume you're not talking to the Linux SME of a $30.5B defense division who has to deal with development systems of the next- generation defense systems. I know all about maintaining development systems, making sure they are standardized, etc... ]
I presumed nothing about anyone.
If you are looking for a system where the updates are _minimal_, meaning fixes are backported instead of just replaced with newer versions, then you want an "enterprise" distribution like RHEL or SLES.
Yes. You have struck the nail upon the head with perfect orthogonality.
If you are looking for a system where the updates are regular, bringing new features, then you want something like Fedora Core or, depending on how "current" you want things, Gentoo.
Nope, not interested in new features. While I like Linux so far, my *NIX background is mostly HPUX and SOLARIS. As a user, not an admin. So the major features I need are POSIX compatibility, stable compiler and linker. Ability to test with same binary databases.
Currently, I'm building/testing on Linux FC2, with targets SCO and console app (pseudo MSDOS) under Windows. We do compiles for release under SCO or Windows. I'm trying to get us to where we do cross- compiles for MSDOS, and use common source. Frankly, I wish I could get them to abandon support for Windows console app.
When I need "fluid" system changes during leading-edge R&D cycles, I'm
"Fluidity" is not one of the things I consider advantageous to me.
finding Gentoo is best. When I need "static" system changes when I'm providing a development platform to, say, the USAF for production systems that have already been developed, then I'm definitely getting them a Red Hat Desktop (RHEL WS in volume license) license/subscription.
Reasonable. Perhaps then FC with careful choice of upgrades would be best. But I'm sure getting pressure to abandon FC2, although I'm using latest and greatest. But you say that they don't back port changes, rather make new releases to fix problems.
[snip]
I'd like something which I could run for a couple of years before feeling an urge to update. If even then.
Well, I've still got Red Hat Linux 7.3 systems getting updates from Fedora Legacy. It all depends on what you trust.
So, what would be wrong with staying with FC2, and using Fedora Legacy in more or less the same manner?
We'll see. I am somewhat resistant to "churn". I want a stable development environment more than I want the latest shinyest bugs.
Then you can either run the current, most mature version of Fedora Core, such as Fedora Core 3. Or you can run CentOS. I'd say CentOS, but I don't know what kind of development you are doing (I might even push you towards Gentoo, depending).
Is FC3 really that much different from the last FC2 + all updates + Legacy?
But to base it on Fedora Core 2 would be just as bad as Red Hat Linux 5.0 and Red Hat Linux 7.0 -- because that's _exactly_ what Fedora Core 2 was like. It's the first ".0" of an +2 version -- major, major changes, just like Red Hat Linux 5.0 was over Red Hat Linux 4.x, and Red Hat Linux 7.0 over Red Hat Linux 6.x. Red Hat Linux 6.x was more evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 5.x, and Red Hat Linux 8.0, 9 and Fedora Core 1 were more evolutionary from Red Hat Linux 7.x.
I have had only one (1) problem with FC2, which was that it clobbered my partitition BR (or BPB if you prefer) and caused WinXP to refuse to boot. (Another problem was that I installed GRUB into my MBR, which caused my machine to want to go into recovery mode. But that was partly my own fault. It's also partly the fault of the installer, and people being slightly more enthusiastic than truthful about multi-boot systems.)
Anyway, now that I've fixed the BRs, and got WinXP managing my multi-boot, and GRUB picking what version of the kernel to load, I've found it very stable.
I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released in the first place?
It's really all about the history, and the changes in Fedora Core 2 were not a surprise at all.
Not that I claim that FC is buggy. There are some show- stoppers for me in re. FC4.
Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 3.
But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should move away from FC2 to FC3.
SELinux is part of it.
SELinux is in RHEL 4 (and CentOS 4), based on the work in Fedora Core 2 and 3.
SELinux is not in RHEL 3 (and CentOS 3), because they are based on the work of Red Hat Linux 9 and Fedora Core 1.
Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall.
??? This has nothing to do with Fedora Core.
There is a reported known defect in the firewall for FC4 which prevents using Windows Shares. Why do you say this has nothing to do with FC?
Again, I will warn you, if you are making such complaints about Fedora Core, you're not going to find much more in Red Hat Enterprise Linux either (which CentOS is based on).
I would not like to categorize my statements as complaints. I'd rather categorize them as statements of what my situation is, and how well FC does or does not fit my situation.
If I want to "play" with a different version, I'll burn Knoppix or Kanotix and fiddle. But not with my development machine, thanks.
I'm still scratching my head.
I don't find Linux administration fun. If I wanted to load a dozen versions of Linux up to see what they are like, I'd download a bunch of Live CDs and boot them one after another. For my work machine I don't want to be reinstalling every few months.
To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd rather do it less often than more.
Understand I would be _more_than_happy_ to see you come over to CentOS. But what I'm afraid of, based on your above comments, is that the same complaints you have on Fedora Core will follow you to CentOS too.
I appreciate that. Thanks!
So all you will accomplish is a wipe and new install of CentOS 4, only to be disappointed. Which is why I said you might want to try an "yum upgrade" to Fedora Core 3 first.
IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as bad.
I have the ISOs for FC3, and have burnt discs. I tried an install on another machine, and it failed. Are you suggesting that I use those CDs to try to upgrade my work computer? (Now, I realize that "# yum upgrade" is not the same as booting the CD.)
I had hoped that might be the case. But on the FC echo, I was warned away from that. I was strongly advised to backup, clean the disc, and re-install from scratch, or consequences too terrible to contemplate might happen. Because it's a totally different thing.
No, I meant to administer/support it. You _will_ probably want to re-install. RHEL and RHL (now FC) have completely different priorities.
Administer/support what? Somehow I lost track of the antecedent for the pronoun.
Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, which has a great deal of stuff installed in it.
Erm? What do you mean by "issues"? In what way is CentOS a subset of FC2 or FC3?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for the original Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E", has always been a more static, "subset" of support from Fedora Core, just like Red Hat Linux prior. Much of it is due to locale support, but the main driver is the "what we ship, we support" attitude of Red Hat.
With guaranteed SLAs as slow as 4 hours, RHEL is designed to be as minimal as possible.
I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might miss from FC in going to CentOS?
CentOS does have it's CentOS Plus and Extras repositories, and there are other helpful repositories like DAG -- but if you're complaining about installer problems with FC3, then you're in for a world of issues if you try to upgrade FC2 to CentOS 4.
Which is why I said that you might try Fedora Core 3 first from either the CD (recommended), or "yum upgrade" first.
If you say so. Upgrade FC3->CentOS is easier?
[snip]
I also didn't like the fact that the FC4 install I did on Sunday (on a machine I built up just for the purpose of experimenting with upgrading from FC2) put my single disc into a virtual volume without even asking.
Use the "expert" mode during install. It is listed in the boot options pages.
Thanks. I plunked down $100 for a fellow to build me up a machine with no disc, just a box with MB, Floppy, CDreader, Ethernet, pwr. I added a 40GB disc for $50, and intend to fiddle with it, until I get to where I can back up and restore and feel comfortable with being able to get my system back. THEN I want to think about possibly upgrading my system. This may be a few months, since I work during the week :-)
Also note that Fedora Core 4 is clearly more of a ".0" early adopters / "we changes some things" release. Not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 2 was, but I'd recommend an upgrade to Fedora Core 3 right now.
Could you elaborate on the reasons?
Most of the "extra" features seem not to be something I have much desire for. The extra security especially is mostly useless for my desktop which sits behind a router firewall, and nothing else connected to the "lan" side. I understand the need for such types of things in servers, especially those with external connections which are open, but my single-user deskto system has much more relaxed requirements. So, what issues do I need to investigate?
Well, I've made my recommendations and I'm sure people will just view me as a "Fedora apologist." I'm just trying to avoid you coming to CentOS and having the same complaints (possibly more).
I'm just glad to have access to someone polite, helpful, and more knowledgeable than me.
Mike
Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I wasn't aware of that. I once installed RHL 6.1 on a few machines and used it for several months, but I never had any contact after that.
There is a lot of Red Hat Linux history that has been "retroactively rewritten" by many people.
Ok. That is what I sort of expected. I don't need to pay for hand-holding.
That's definitely not what you're paying for with RHEL.
But I do need support from time to time. CentOS sounds like ideal, nearly. But see below. I suppose you meant "threshhold". I'm accustomed to somewhat different language conventions. I've heard alpha engineer/internal only testing beta customer testing release believed stable
Yes, I know.
But even in that model, you can think of Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) and "alpha," Fedora test (fka Red Hat Beta) as "beta," and release as release.
Development/Rawhide is where new packages are dropped. Eventually Red Hat reaches a set of packages it likes for the next release, freezes changes, and forks off the set as the next "Test/Beta." Test/Beta is where packages are integration tested. Integration testing is something that can be done on a package-level.
After a series of Test/Beta releases, 1-2-3-4, whatever it takes, then it is a release. That is the 2-2-2 month release model that results in the 6 month releases.
Now how the packages are selected leds us to the 6-6-6 month release model. Every 2-3 releases, Red Hat _purposely_ makes _major_ changes to the GCC, GLibC and/or kernel, possibly core features such as SELinux, devfs/udev, etc... Almost all of them are made in the first release, sometimes a few are tweaked/changed by the second release.
Red Hat Linux 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and Fedora Core 2 are considered _major_ changes. Fedora Core 4 could also be considered a major change too.
engineer test engineer testing programs integration test engineers testing whole load verification test QA testing whole load against rqmts acceptance test customer test at live site before accepting roll-out (also called FVO or Field Verification Office) release/roll-out release to general public
[ BTW, as I mentioned before, understand you are talking to someone who has spent half his career developing avionics code for military and defense systems -- primarily with GNU/BSD platforms (Linux, VxWorks, etc...). ]
If at any point, any defects are found, then the load gets evaluated and if the defects are deemed unacceptable, (no acceptable work-around) then the load is retracted, reworked, and then starts over at an earlier stage.
Red Hat builds their packages upon the community, even if they are involved with much of the community. Red Hat eventually freezes the package set how it likes it and moves to an integration test. There are _several_ tests. Then there is an eventual release. This is the 2-2-2 month release model.
99.9% of the complaints I've seen on Red Hat Linux and, now, Fedora Core have to do with older compatibility, installer issues due to dual-booting/existing systems and other things that have *0* to do with the quality of the packages both individually and as a whole. In the case of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and CentOS), the older compatibility is "shaken out" by the fact that they are 12-18 months _later_ than the ".0" release. But the installer issues are rarely worked out, because installers are, by their very nature, imperfect.
Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking if I intend to continue using RH at all.
You have to be around Red Hat awhile to understand how their release model works. For most of us who have, we trust it more than just about any other.
I don't know. I am new to Linux. I'm accustomed to Solaris. We weren't asked to upgrade every 6 mos with Solaris. More like every 4-5 years.
That's what Red Hat and SuSE do with their "enterprise" releases -- 5+ years of support.
_All_ other Linux releases are typically only 2 years or less, with few exceptions (maybe Debian).
[ BTW, don't assume you're not taking to a guy that has been deploying SunOS 3 on the Internet since 1989, and is a huge fan of Solaris 10 on Opteron. ]
Ok. Then RHL is beta test.
Fair enough.
Given the strict approach of Red Hat Linux, feel free to assert that every Linux distribution is a beta-test -- maybe Debian is one of the few exceptions.
"Ports" distros like Gentoo could even be considered totally lacking in integration testing, since you always build from source.
And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine.
Agreed, although it would help me to know what you are developing. So far you have spoken in generalizations.
E.g., I have been developing mission-critical, real-time avionics for VxWorks and Linux targets on Solaris and Linux since the mid-'90s.
I have also done less critical embedded work using some BSD, mostly Linux and other systems (even DOS).
Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough.
There is always Fedora Legacy.
As I mentioned before, if you're expecting "free support," then good luck. You're not going to find any vendor or community that's going to fulfill needs both ways.
CentOS does a pretty good job of balancing as best as it can -- a 1:1 rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux from Source packages, but a good set of additional packages in CentOS Plus, Extras, etc...
I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists.
Ahh, so they are used to OS/2 and AIX solutions, maybe some SCO here and there, I assume? You'll probably want to stick with RHEL/RHD, or CentOS when you don't need Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
Currently, I'm building/testing on Linux FC2, with targets SCO and console app (pseudo MSDOS) under Windows.
FYI, I know what APIs are used in a OS/2 1.x/2.x console as well as a non-GDI Win32 target (or at least I used to, it's been awhile ;-).
[ In the early '90s, I was the OS/2 expert at the largest consulting engineering firm in the SE US, which was also the largest installed base of Bentley Systems Microstation -- the first native NT 3.1 application. I've been around OS/2-NT a long, long time. I'm proud to say I have _never_ had to support "Chicago" (Win95/98/Me) in my entire career, and told several people I'd be "professional negligent" if I allowed it on the network. This included early looks into the NT 3.1 betas and even some code. ]
We do compiles for release under SCO or Windows. I'm trying to get us to where we do cross-compiles for MSDOS, and use common source.
There is the DJGCC compiler for DOS16 and DOS32, which includes support for MS-DOS 7.x "Chicago" Int21h functions (like long filenames).
Frankly, I wish I could get them to abandon support for Windows console app.
Considering Windows RPC/SMB services are _not_ "safe" for console apps, I completely agree.
Reasonable. Perhaps then FC with careful choice of upgrades would be best.
I don't know, CentOS with CentOS Plus/Extras seems to be good. Red Hat Desktop is fairly cheap in quantity when you want a Service Level Agreement on all the software you don't write.
But I'm sure getting pressure to abandon FC2, although I'm using latest and greatest.
Fedora Core 2 was turned over to "Legacy" months ago.
Even CentOS 4, based on RHEL 4, is a fork of the "more mature" current Fedora Core 3 codebase.
But you say that they don't back port changes, rather make new releases to fix problems.
Not always. Red Hat Linux and, now Fedora Core, have always tried to backport to avoid changes. But there have been some newer package releases, depending on the effort. This is especially in comparison to most other distros (sands maybe Debian, maybe SuSE somewhat as well).
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (so CentOS) have _always_ been "extra anal" on avoiding new feature adoption or changes. SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) is close, although maybe not so anal, it depends.
So, what would be wrong with staying with FC2, and using Fedora Legacy in more or less the same manner?
If it works for you, great.
Is FC3 really that much different from the last FC2 + all updates + Legacy?
Yes.
The "next revision" after a "major change" typically fixes a crapload. ".1" releases were always much better than ".0" releases, and I purposely waited on ".1" releases before moving away from the previous ".1" or ".2".
I have had only one (1) problem with FC2, which was that it clobbered my partitition BR (or BPB if you prefer) and caused WinXP to refuse to boot. (Another problem was that I installed GRUB into my MBR, which caused my machine to want to go into recovery mode. But that was partly my own fault. It's also partly the fault of the installer, and people being slightly more enthusiastic than truthful about multi-boot systems.)
The PC is the worst multi-boot platform. Linux will not solve the problem, especially with Microsoft's heavy non-compliance with ATA standards.
I recently did a presentation on disk geometry and all the _stupid_ things that XP does -- especially just before SP2, in SP2 and many post-fixes that are trying for ATA-6 compliance.
Even Microsoft hasn't figured out what it's going to do yet. But one thing is for certain, Microsoft is regularly using undocumented bytes in the Master Boot Record (MBR) that is already in use by other boot loaders.
I typically recommend another swappable disk for Windows, or at least keeping your C: filesystem within the first 32GB of the disk.
Anyway, now that I've fixed the BRs, and got WinXP managing my multi-boot, and GRUB picking what version of the kernel to load, I've found it very stable.
The installer of every distro will not be able to handle that. Not even Microsoft's bootloader does all that automagically, and you have to do all sorts of manual steps.
It's not a Linux issue at all, but a PC/Windows one. And Microsoft and Intel are in no hurry to solve it either.
I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released in the first place?
Why was Red Hat Linux 5.0 or Red Hat Linux 7.0 released? Because sooner or later, new things have to be adopted. And Red Hat's typically the one that does it, and forces everyone to comply.
But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should move away from FC2 to FC3.
Sorry, I meant FC4 is not nearly as bad as FC2 (not FC3). Typo, sorry about that.
There is a reported known defect in the firewall for FC4 which prevents using Windows Shares. Why do you say this as nothing to do with FC?
Security and RPC services (like Windows Networking)compatibility are often mutually exclusive. You have to reduce security to get compatibility. It's a catch-22.
I would not like to categorize my statements as complaints. I'd rather categorize them as statements of what my situation is, and how well FC does or does not fit my situation.
Okay, let me rephrase, your statements are pretty much ones you're going to have issues with in general with Linux. Linux comes with many defaults that are not "play friendly" with "ready to be worm-infested" Windows networks, cannot deal with Microsoft's constantly changing geometry/boot issues, etc...
No vendor flavor really does it well at all, not even Microsoft's own different Windows versions.
I don't find Linux administration fun. If I wanted to load a dozen versions of Linux up to see what they are like, I'd download a bunch of Live CDs and boot them one after another. For my work machine I don't want to be reinstalling every few months.
RHEL/CentOS is probably best then. Fedora Core is still good, don't get me wrong, but the updates to RHEL/CentOS are better than Fedora Legacy.
To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd rather do it less often than more.
Well, I've never had a data loss (although I lost a /var filesystem with XFS 1.0 back in Red Hat Linux 7.1, but no data loss on that). I've also upgraded from Red Hat Linux 4.2 -> 7.1, and subsequently from 7.3 -> Fedora Core 3 -- until I moved to x86-64.
Upgrading hasn't been an issue for me in the more "community" releases on my personal system (which is also a heavily used development/engineering system).
At work, I've typically deployed RHEL/RHD, although Gentoo for some R&D, and Debian at various locations.
IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as bad.
Well, I'd at least start getting updates from Fedora Legacy for Fedora Core 2.
I have the ISOs for FC3, and have burnt discs. I tried an install on another machine, and it failed. Are you suggesting that I use those CDs to try to upgrade my work computer? (Now, I realize that "# yum upgrade" is not the same as booting the CD.)
Backups are always good, but yes, if the CD work. BTW, you don't have to use the CD to upgrade. You can boot CD #1 with "linux askmethod" and access the .iso files from a partition that you're not upgrading from -- such as a FAT32 partition.
Administer/support what? Somehow I lost track of the antecedent for the pronoun.
I meant FC/RHL/RHEL/CentOS are virtually the same from administering the system in configuration, day-to-day activities, etc...
Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, which has a great deal of stuff installed in it.
Then consider just sticking with Fedora Core 2 and Legacy Updates. At the most, if you upgrade to Fedora Core 3, it's pretty much the same GCC, GLibC and Kernel series, so the impact is minimal. But stay with Fedora Core 2 for now.
If you want, build a new "Sister Build System" based on CentOS 4, which is very much the same GCC, GLibC and Kernel series as FC2/3 as well.
I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might miss from FC in going to CentOS?
Same as everything in RHEL, since CentOS is based on it. I don't know because I don't know how you use your system.
If you say so. Upgrade FC3->CentOS is easier?
No, FC2->FC3 is easiest. If you want to go CentOS 4, install new.
Thanks. I plunked down $100 for a fellow to build me up a machine with no disc, just a box with MB, Floppy, CDreader, Ethernet, pwr. I added a 40GB disc for $50, and intendto fiddle with it, until I get to where I can back up and restore and feel comfortable with being able to get my system back. THEN I want to think about possibly upgrading my system. This may be a few months, since I work during the week :-)
Then just stick with Fedora Core 2 if it's working for you. Fedora Legacy was still churning out necessary updates last time I checked. How well they are tested or if they are still in the "Testing" subdirectories, and not release, is always a consideration.
Could you elaborate on the reasons?
6-6-6 model. The earlier the revision, the more "issues" because of new adoption, etc... The latter the revision, the less "issues" because of the accommodations, maturity, etc...
Red Hat Linux 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 -> 6.2 "E" Red Hat Linux 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 -> Enterprise Linux 2.1 <- 7.3 Red Hat Linux 8.0, 9 -> Enterprise Linux 3 <- Fedora Core 1 Fedora Core 2, 3 -> Enterprise Linux 4 Fedora Core 4
As you can see, after 2-3 6-month releases, Red Hat bases its 18-month Enterprise release on. Sometimes there is a 3rd or 4th 6-month release before the next series.
Looking at the left, you'll see Red Hat Linux 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, Fedora Core 2 and 4. Looking towards the right you will see the "enterprise" releases, as well as Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7.3, Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 3.
Thanks for the resume...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Mike McCarty mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I wasn't aware of that. I once installed RHL 6.1 on a few machines and used it for several months, but I never had any contact after that.
There is a lot of Red Hat Linux history that has been "retroactively rewritten" by many people.
Ok. That is what I sort of expected. I don't need to pay for hand-holding.
That's definitely not what you're paying for with RHEL.
But I do need support from time to time. CentOS sounds like ideal, nearly. But see below. I suppose you meant "threshhold". I'm accustomed to somewhat different language conventions. I've heard alpha engineer/internal only testing beta customer testing release believed stable
Yes, I know.
But even in that model, you can think of Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) and "alpha," Fedora test (fka Red Hat Beta) as "beta," and release as release.
Development/Rawhide is where new packages are dropped. Eventually Red Hat reaches a set of packages it likes for the next release, freezes changes, and forks off the set as the next "Test/Beta." Test/Beta is where packages are integration tested. Integration testing is something that can be done on a package-level.
After a series of Test/Beta releases, 1-2-3-4, whatever it takes, then it is a release. That is the 2-2-2 month release model that results in the 6 month releases.
Now how the packages are selected leds us to the 6-6-6 month release model. Every 2-3 releases, Red Hat _purposely_ makes _major_ changes to the GCC, GLibC and/or kernel, possibly core features such as SELinux, devfs/udev, etc... Almost all of them are made in the first release, sometimes a few are tweaked/changed by the second release.
Red Hat Linux 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and Fedora Core 2 are considered _major_ changes. Fedora Core 4 could also be considered a major change too.
engineer test engineer testing programs integration test engineers testing whole load verification test QA testing whole load against rqmts acceptance test customer test at live site before accepting roll-out (also called FVO or Field Verification Office) release/roll-out release to general public
[ BTW, as I mentioned before, understand you are talking to someone who has spent half his career developing avionics code for military and defense systems -- primarily with GNU/BSD platforms (Linux, VxWorks, etc...). ]
If at any point, any defects are found, then the load gets evaluated and if the defects are deemed unacceptable, (no acceptable work-around) then the load is retracted, reworked, and then starts over at an earlier stage.
Red Hat builds their packages upon the community, even if they are involved with much of the community. Red Hat eventually freezes the package set how it likes it and moves to an integration test. There are _several_ tests. Then there is an eventual release. This is the 2-2-2 month release model.
99.9% of the complaints I've seen on Red Hat Linux and, now, Fedora Core have to do with older compatibility, installer issues due to dual-booting/existing systems and other things that have *0* to do with the quality of the packages both individually and as a whole. In the case of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and CentOS), the older compatibility is "shaken out" by the fact that they are 12-18 months _later_ than the ".0" release. But the installer issues are rarely worked out, because installers are, by their very nature, imperfect.
Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking if I intend to continue using RH at all.
You have to be around Red Hat awhile to understand how their release model works. For most of us who have, we trust it more than just about any other.
I don't know. I am new to Linux. I'm accustomed to Solaris. We weren't asked to upgrade every 6 mos with Solaris. More like every 4-5 years.
That's what Red Hat and SuSE do with their "enterprise" releases -- 5+ years of support.
_All_ other Linux releases are typically only 2 years or less, with few exceptions (maybe Debian).
[ BTW, don't assume you're not taking to a guy that has been deploying SunOS 3 on the Internet since 1989, and is a huge fan of Solaris 10 on Opteron. ]
Ok. Then RHL is beta test.
Fair enough.
Given the strict approach of Red Hat Linux, feel free to assert that every Linux distribution is a beta-test -- maybe Debian is one of the few exceptions.
"Ports" distros like Gentoo could even be considered totally lacking in integration testing, since you always build from source.
And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine.
Agreed, although it would help me to know what you are developing. So far you have spoken in generalizations.
E.g., I have been developing mission-critical, real-time avionics for VxWorks and Linux targets on Solaris and Linux since the mid-'90s.
I have also done less critical embedded work using some BSD, mostly Linux and other systems (even DOS).
Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough.
There is always Fedora Legacy.
As I mentioned before, if you're expecting "free support," then good luck. You're not going to find any vendor or community that's going to fulfill needs both ways.
CentOS does a pretty good job of balancing as best as it can -- a 1:1 rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux from Source packages, but a good set of additional packages in CentOS Plus, Extras, etc...
I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists.
Ahh, so they are used to OS/2 and AIX solutions, maybe some SCO here and there, I assume? You'll probably want to stick with RHEL/RHD, or CentOS when you don't need Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
Currently, I'm building/testing on Linux FC2, with targets SCO and console app (pseudo MSDOS) under Windows.
FYI, I know what APIs are used in a OS/2 1.x/2.x console as well as a non-GDI Win32 target (or at least I used to, it's been awhile ;-).
[ In the early '90s, I was the OS/2 expert at the largest consulting engineering firm in the SE US, which was also the largest installed base of Bentley Systems Microstation -- the first native NT 3.1 application. I've been around OS/2-NT a long, long time. I'm proud to say I have _never_ had to support "Chicago" (Win95/98/Me) in my entire career, and told several people I'd be "professional negligent" if I allowed it on the network. This included early looks into the NT 3.1 betas and even some code. ]
We do compiles for release under SCO or Windows. I'm trying to get us to where we do cross-compiles for MSDOS, and use common source.
There is the DJGCC compiler for DOS16 and DOS32, which includes support for MS-DOS 7.x "Chicago" Int21h functions (like long filenames).
Frankly, I wish I could get them to abandon support for Windows console app.
Considering Windows RPC/SMB services are _not_ "safe" for console apps, I completely agree.
Reasonable. Perhaps then FC with careful choice of upgrades would be best.
I don't know, CentOS with CentOS Plus/Extras seems to be good. Red Hat Desktop is fairly cheap in quantity when you want a Service Level Agreement on all the software you don't write.
But I'm sure getting pressure to abandon FC2, although I'm using latest and greatest.
Fedora Core 2 was turned over to "Legacy" months ago.
Even CentOS 4, based on RHEL 4, is a fork of the "more mature" current Fedora Core 3 codebase.
But you say that they don't back port changes, rather make new releases to fix problems.
Not always. Red Hat Linux and, now Fedora Core, have always tried to backport to avoid changes. But there have been some newer package releases, depending on the effort. This is especially in comparison to most other distros (sands maybe Debian, maybe SuSE somewhat as well).
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (so CentOS) have _always_ been "extra anal" on avoiding new feature adoption or changes. SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) is close, although maybe not so anal, it depends.
So, what would be wrong with staying with FC2, and using Fedora Legacy in more or less the same manner?
If it works for you, great.
Is FC3 really that much different from the last FC2 + all updates + Legacy?
Yes.
The "next revision" after a "major change" typically fixes a crapload. ".1" releases were always much better than ".0" releases, and I purposely waited on ".1" releases before moving away from the previous ".1" or ".2".
I have had only one (1) problem with FC2, which was that it clobbered my partitition BR (or BPB if you prefer) and caused WinXP to refuse to boot. (Another problem was that I installed GRUB into my MBR, which caused my machine to want to go into recovery mode. But that was partly my own fault. It's also partly the fault of the installer, and people being slightly more enthusiastic than truthful about multi-boot systems.)
The PC is the worst multi-boot platform. Linux will not solve the problem, especially with Microsoft's heavy non-compliance with ATA standards.
I recently did a presentation on disk geometry and all the _stupid_ things that XP does -- especially just before SP2, in SP2 and many post-fixes that are trying for ATA-6 compliance.
Even Microsoft hasn't figured out what it's going to do yet. But one thing is for certain, Microsoft is regularly using undocumented bytes in the Master Boot Record (MBR) that is already in use by other boot loaders.
I typically recommend another swappable disk for Windows, or at least keeping your C: filesystem within the first 32GB of the disk.
Anyway, now that I've fixed the BRs, and got WinXP managing my multi-boot, and GRUB picking what version of the kernel to load, I've found it very stable.
The installer of every distro will not be able to handle that. Not even Microsoft's bootloader does all that automagically, and you have to do all sorts of manual steps.
It's not a Linux issue at all, but a PC/Windows one. And Microsoft and Intel are in no hurry to solve it either.
I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released in the first place?
Why was Red Hat Linux 5.0 or Red Hat Linux 7.0 released? Because sooner or later, new things have to be adopted. And Red Hat's typically the one that does it, and forces everyone to comply.
But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should move away from FC2 to FC3.
Sorry, I meant FC4 is not nearly as bad as FC2 (not FC3). Typo, sorry about that.
There is a reported known defect in the firewall for FC4 which prevents using Windows Shares. Why do you say this as nothing to do with FC?
Security and RPC services (like Windows Networking)compatibility are often mutually exclusive. You have to reduce security to get compatibility. It's a catch-22.
I would not like to categorize my statements as complaints. I'd rather categorize them as statements of what my situation is, and how well FC does or does not fit my situation.
Okay, let me rephrase, your statements are pretty much ones you're going to have issues with in general with Linux. Linux comes with many defaults that are not "play friendly" with "ready to be worm-infested" Windows networks, cannot deal with Microsoft's constantly changing geometry/boot issues, etc...
No vendor flavor really does it well at all, not even Microsoft's own different Windows versions.
I don't find Linux administration fun. If I wanted to load a dozen versions of Linux up to see what they are like, I'd download a bunch of Live CDs and boot them one after another. For my work machine I don't want to be reinstalling every few months.
RHEL/CentOS is probably best then. Fedora Core is still good, don't get me wrong, but the updates to RHEL/CentOS are better than Fedora Legacy.
To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd rather do it less often than more.
Well, I've never had a data loss (although I lost a /var filesystem with XFS 1.0 back in Red Hat Linux 7.1, but no data loss on that). I've also upgraded from Red Hat Linux 4.2 -> 7.1, and subsequently from 7.3 -> Fedora Core 3 -- until I moved to x86-64.
Upgrading hasn't been an issue for me in the more "community" releases on my personal system (which is also a heavily used development/engineering system).
At work, I've typically deployed RHEL/RHD, although Gentoo for some R&D, and Debian at various locations.
IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as bad.
Well, I'd at least start getting updates from Fedora Legacy for Fedora Core 2.
I have the ISOs for FC3, and have burnt discs. I tried an install on another machine, and it failed. Are you suggesting that I use those CDs to try to upgrade my work computer? (Now, I realize that "# yum upgrade" is not the same as booting the CD.)
Backups are always good, but yes, if the CD work. BTW, you don't have to use the CD to upgrade. You can boot CD #1 with "linux askmethod" and access the .iso files from a partition that you're not upgrading from -- such as a FAT32 partition.
Administer/support what? Somehow I lost track of the antecedent for the pronoun.
I meant FC/RHL/RHEL/CentOS are virtually the same from administering the system in configuration, day-to-day activities, etc...
Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, which has a great deal of stuff installed in it.
Then consider just sticking with Fedora Core 2 and Legacy Updates. At the most, if you upgrade to Fedora Core 3, it's pretty much the same GCC, GLibC and Kernel series, so the impact is minimal. But stay with Fedora Core 2 for now.
If you want, build a new "Sister Build System" based on CentOS 4, which is very much the same GCC, GLibC and Kernel series as FC2/3 as well.
I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might miss from FC in going to CentOS?
Same as everything in RHEL, since CentOS is based on it. I don't know because I don't know how you use your system.
If you say so. Upgrade FC3->CentOS is easier?
No, FC2->FC3 is easiest. If you want to go CentOS 4, install new.
Thanks. I plunked down $100 for a fellow to build me up a machine with no disc, just a box with MB, Floppy, CDreader, Ethernet, pwr. I added a 40GB disc for $50, and intendto fiddle with it, until I get to where I can back up and restore and feel comfortable with being able to get my system back. THEN I want to think about possibly upgrading my system. This may be a few months, since I work during the week :-)
Then just stick with Fedora Core 2 if it's working for you. Fedora Legacy was still churning out necessary updates last time I checked. How well they are tested or if they are still in the "Testing" subdirectories, and not release, is always a consideration.
Could you elaborate on the reasons?
6-6-6 model. The earlier the revision, the more "issues" because of new adoption, etc... The latter the revision, the less "issues" because of the accommodations, maturity, etc...
Red Hat Linux 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 -> 6.2 "E" Red Hat Linux 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 -> Enterprise Linux 2.1 <- 7.3 Red Hat Linux 8.0, 9 -> Enterprise Linux 3 <- Fedora Core 1 Fedora Core 2, 3 -> Enterprise Linux 4 Fedora Core 4
As you can see, after 2-3 6-month releases, Red Hat bases its 18-month Enterprise release on. Sometimes there is a 3rd or 4th 6-month release before the next series.
Looking at the left, you'll see Red Hat Linux 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, Fedora Core 2 and 4. Looking towards the right you will see the "enterprise" releases, as well as Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7.3, Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 3.
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Thanks for the resume...
I don't know how to take that, but just so you know ... That's only a _minority_ portion of my career (~4-5 years).
If you want my resume, I'll send it to you off-line. Until then, I point out things so people know where I'm coming from, and I understand many of their processes, not to be "arrogant."
Why? Because there's always people who have more credentials. If I wanted to flaunt my credentials, just me, I can get rediculous. There's no need to do that, because we're all here to help each other, not to show "I am the authority" on something.
I'd rather people take me on the value of my actual technical statements -- and that has to be earned over _years_. Credentials are a "shortcut" that I despise. So don't read into things when I point them out to show that I understand where people are coming from.
Such as engineering processes.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
Thanks for the resume...
I don't know how to take that, but just so you know ... That's only a _minority_ portion of my career (~4-5 years).
You're supposed to take it like half your post consisted of telling everybody about your experience. Shouldn't your arguments stand on their own feet, without the resume attachment?
BTW, you just did it again, pointing out that that was only one small portion of your illustrious career.
If you want my resume, I'll send it to you off-line. Until then, I point out things so people know where I'm coming from, and I understand many of their processes, not to be "arrogant."
It comes off as arrogant, at least to me. Your points should stand on their own feet. If people don't get it, then what's the point?
Why? Because there's always people who have more credentials. If I wanted to flaunt my credentials, just me, I can get rediculous. There's no need to do that, because we're all here to help each other, not to show "I am the authority" on something.
Except you just did it again. :-)
You don't want to flaunt your credentials, but then say if you did you could get "rediculous". Or maybe that should be "ridiculous", I was an English major after all, I wrote some pretty sweet papers. Whether my extremely awesome command of spelling is the issue, isn't really the issue. The issue is the irony of what you said. Or what I just said. Nevermind...
I'd rather people take me on the value of my actual technical statements -- and that has to be earned over _years_.
Yes. And those can stand alone from the resume part.
Credentials are a "shortcut" that I despise. So don't read into things when I point them out to show that I understand where people are coming from.
Such as engineering processes.
That's fine. I was just trying to add levity to the discussion. This is a mailing list that by and large is very pleasant. CentOS is a very pleasant distro. It just works, well. I pointed out earlier how I tried Ubuntu and had problems with the distro. Same with Fedora Core 4. It crashed on install. And visit #freebsd on a GOOD night and you're likely to witness some pretty surly behavior.
CentOS isn't like that. The community is practical and nice and really pretty much focused on using the distro to get stuff done. It's an island in the Linux world, IMHO. Relatively shielded from arguments about licensing, good and evil, etc.
So the flaunting...? I found it both annoying and funny.
You can send me your resume, but I'd rather not read it here, nor in my inbox.
Preston
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
BTW, you just did it again, pointing out that that was only one small portion of your illustrious career.
The thing is, if you're going to demonize my statements as what they were not, then damn yes, I'm going to point out that your attempts to belittle me are in grave error.
So just don't do it. There is no reason to. If you don't want me to respond, then don't make an issue in the first place. Think about that.
It comes off as arrogant, at least to me.
Your questioning comes off as argumentative because you're reading my comments not as I intended them. I don't know why you did it, but you did it. So damn yes, if you're going to make a big deal about it ... LET'S MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT!
Your points should stand on their own feet. If people
don't
get it, then what's the point?
The point is that you read into what I said. What I was for the sake I the fact I knew where someone was coming from. I know his plights as a developer.
Except you just did it again. :-)
Because you read into it! If you don't read into it, then we don't have this issue! Again, I do _not_ flaunt my credentials on-list. Your interpretation of what you perceive is the problem, _not_ mine!
You don't want to flaunt your credentials, but then say if you did you could get "rediculous".
Yes, because _you_ made the "big deal" about it.
It's like if I bump you and you turn around and scream everyone that I hit you. I could easily hit you with full effect, but I decide to just shouve you and say "don't start, I could really hit you if I wanted."
So don't go there. _You_ are instigating this for whatever reasons you have. I won't speculate and it's not my point to speculate. I'm just saying do _not_ accuse me of flaunting my resume.
Or maybe that should be "ridiculous", I was an English
major
after all, I wrote some pretty sweet papers. Whether my extremely awesome command of spelling is the issue, isn't really the issue. The issue is the irony of what you said.
The irony is in that _you_ made a "big deal" about what I said. Now you make more of a big deal. You are hoping I just "flaunt my resume" so you can go, "ah ha!"
I have dealt with baiters like yourself for years. Your problem is yours, not mine, and I don't do the list any service by giving into what you want.
Or what I just said. Nevermind...
Yes. And those can stand alone from the resume part.
Dude, I was trying to give the guy an idea of where I was coming from based on his responses. You can't start criticizing me without looking at all the context and statements involved.
You want to pick out portions of what I said for some sort of issue you have. I don't know what to tell you but forget about it.
That's fine. I was just trying to add levity to the discussion.
No, you are reading into what I was saying. I was trying to let the gentleman know that I knew exactly where he was coming from.
There is a difference between confidence and cockiness. You are trying to paint me as cocky. I was not, I re-read what I said, and it was not my intent. If you feel it came off that way, then you deal with it. Sometimes I tire of explaining myself when there are _others_ around who are no better than I, if not worse.
In other words, I bumped you and you want to make a big deal about it and say I hit you. Well, this is a little shouve to let you know, I don't care what you do, I'm not hitting you. You can try to entice me all you want, but I'm not going to.
This is a mailing list that by and large is very pleasant. CentOS is a very pleasant distro. It just works, well. I pointed out earlier how I tried Ubuntu and had problems with the distro. Same with Fedora Core 4. It crashed on install. And visit #freebsd on a GOOD night and you're likely to witness some pretty surly behavior. CentOS isn't like that. The community is practical and nice and reallypretty much focused on using the distro to get stuff done. It's an island in the Linux world, IMHO.
So what are you asserting here? Is this you dancing around something you want to say? Or just the hope that I'm paranoid?
Relatively shielded from arguments about licensing, good and evil, etc. So the flaunting...? I found it both annoying and funny.
Dude, no offense, but there are a _lot_ of people who could flaunt things here. When people bring up their background in the context of understanding where someone else is coming from, I don't see other people getting jumped on.
You can send me your resume, but I'd rather not read it here, nor in my inbox.
What don't you understand about "off-line"? Oh, that's right, you're interested in being argumentative, not actually caring what I said, or what you think I said, but more of what you want to demonize into what I said.
This is precisely why I started helping people off-list, and I think I'm definitely going to go back to it. It's one thing to dislike me because I'm verbose, but don't start inventing stuff.
Deal with whatever problem you have with me that you want to pin on me in front of the whole group. Regardless of whatever justification you think you have, that's _exactly_ what you did.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
BTW, you just did it again, pointing out that that was only one small portion of your illustrious career.
The thing is, if you're going to demonize my statements as what they were not, then damn yes, I'm going to point out that your attempts to belittle me are in grave error.
???? That's a tad grandiose, don't you think?
"grave error"? "belittle me"?
I was simply stating that you didn't need to back up your statements about software development (which I found to be correct, for the record) with a running list of your accomplishments. I was trying to be helpful in pointing out that in your effort to "win" you were drowning out your own solid arguments.
So just don't do it. There is no reason to. If you don't want me to respond, then don't make an issue in the first place. Think about that.
????
It comes off as arrogant, at least to me.
Your questioning comes off as argumentative because you're reading my comments not as I intended them. I don't know why you did it, but you did it. So damn yes, if you're going to
It doesn't matter what you intended. I'm just telling you how it came off. To me at least.
make a big deal about it ... LET'S MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT!
All caps? Are we going to rumble or something? Because I gave that up a long time ago.
Your points should stand on their own feet. If people
don't
get it, then what's the point?
The point is that you read into what I said. What I was for the sake I the fact I knew where someone was coming from. I know his plights as a developer.
Then just say that. No need to back it up with reams of evidence. I agreed with your points, largely. However, when I see them presented as you did I don't see the points as much as I see someone trying to win an argument with someone by trying to say THEY know more, THEY'RE more experienced, therefore THEY'RE correct. Don't you see how it could be taken that way?
Except you just did it again. :-)
Because you read into it! If you don't read into it, then we don't have this issue! Again, I do _not_ flaunt my credentials on-list. Your interpretation of what you perceive is the problem, _not_ mine!
Right, but that's kind of the whole point of communication, right? To communicate? And when you list your credentials you may not think you're flaunting them, but when it comes in the context of an argument and you do it over and over again it's more likely perception might change.
You don't want to flaunt your credentials, but then say if you did you could get "rediculous".
Yes, because _you_ made the "big deal" about it.
It's like if I bump you and you turn around and scream everyone that I hit you. I could easily hit you with full effect, but I decide to just shouve you and say "don't start, I could really hit you if I wanted."
????
So don't go there. _You_ are instigating this for whatever reasons you have. I won't speculate and it's not my point to speculate. I'm just saying do _not_ accuse me of flaunting my resume.
I say this with all due respect, sir. But when you attack someone very vociferously as you have done... "Don't go there", etc. And when you start to toss out conspiracy theories that I may be out to get you or something, when I just read your first post a couple days ago, there's a hint for you that you may be arguing too aggressively. That's the point I was trying to make, with humor I might add. And you've just gone off over it.
Or maybe that should be "ridiculous", I was an English
major
after all, I wrote some pretty sweet papers. Whether my extremely awesome command of spelling is the issue, isn't really the issue. The issue is the irony of what you said.
The irony is in that _you_ made a "big deal" about what I said. Now you make more of a big deal. You are hoping I just "flaunt my resume" so you can go, "ah ha!"
Not really. I have no agenda. I barely post on this list. I don't know you, except what you've said. I agree with your point of view. I just don't see the way you're trying to make your points as being very productive on this list.
I have dealt with baiters like yourself for years. Your problem is yours, not mine, and I don't do the list any service by giving into what you want.
I'm not a "baiter". Why would I bait you? Why would I care? I use CentOS to check email, surf the web and do Java/DB/Ruby development. What do I care what you say here, other than suddenly the list went from pretty mellow to pretty aggressive, for no reason.
Or what I just said. Nevermind...
Yes. And those can stand alone from the resume part.
Dude, I was trying to give the guy an idea of where I was coming from based on his responses. You can't start criticizing me without looking at all the context and statements involved.
You want to pick out portions of what I said for some sort of issue you have. I don't know what to tell you but forget about it.
I have no issue. My initial post was a humorous jab trying to point out that your argument would have been every bit if not more clear minus all the resume bullet points.
That's fine. I was just trying to add levity to the discussion.
No, you are reading into what I was saying. I was trying to let the gentleman know that I knew exactly where he was coming from.
Right, which was a point of higher authority than he.
There is a difference between confidence and cockiness. You are trying to paint me as cocky. I was not, I re-read what I
I'm not going to say anything, lest you go ALL CAPS on me again.
said, and it was not my intent. If you feel it came off that way, then you deal with it. Sometimes I tire of explaining myself when there are _others_ around who are no better than I, if not worse.
In other words, I bumped you and you want to make a big deal about it and say I hit you. Well, this is a little shouve to let you know, I don't care what you do, I'm not hitting you. You can try to entice me all you want, but I'm not going to.
Hitting, bumping, shoving? Why so aggressive? We're just having a discussion, right? Not fisticuffs?
This is a mailing list that by and large is very pleasant. CentOS is a very pleasant distro. It just works, well. I pointed out earlier how I tried Ubuntu and had problems with the distro. Same with Fedora Core 4. It crashed on install. And visit #freebsd on a GOOD night and you're likely to witness some pretty surly behavior. CentOS isn't like that. The community is practical and nice and reallypretty much focused on using the distro to get stuff done. It's an island in the Linux world, IMHO.
So what are you asserting here? Is this you dancing around something you want to say? Or just the hope that I'm paranoid?
I'm asserting that this list has been pretty mellow until recently. Nothing more.
Relatively shielded from arguments about licensing, good and evil, etc. So the flaunting...? I found it both annoying and funny.
Dude, no offense, but there are a _lot_ of people who could flaunt things here. When people bring up their background in the context of understanding where someone else is coming from, I don't see other people getting jumped on.
I'm sure there are. I'm not one of them either and guess what? I don't care. We all have things to be proud of in career or in life. I've just never somone use their experience in an argument to the extent you did. Sorry, I just found it a little aggressive. Especially when your argument was sound by itself.
You can send me your resume, but I'd rather not read it here, nor in my inbox.
What don't you understand about "off-line"? Oh, that's right, you're interested in being argumentative, not actually caring what I said, or what you think I said, but more of what you want to demonize into what I said.
No, actually. You might want to re-read your paranoid line up above, though, because you're being paranoid.
This is precisely why I started helping people off-list, and I think I'm definitely going to go back to it. It's one thing to dislike me because I'm verbose, but don't start inventing stuff.
I didn't invent anything. I told you how I perceived you given how you posted.
Deal with whatever problem you have with me that you want to pin on me in front of the whole group. Regardless of whatever justification you think you have, that's _exactly_ what you did.
Listen, I'm sorry if I offended you, but you're really taking this far too seriously. No one is going to check this mailing list for references for a future job. Unless you're actually Judge Roberts and you're up for a Supreme Court nomination hearing, I don't think anyone is going to drill down to find the posts here. You're safe. I haven't done anything to harm you. Relax. I didn't mean any offense. I was simply trying to make a point. We've obviously gone far afield of that point, so do what you feel you have to. But don't blame me for "smearing" you or whatever damage you think I have done.
Preston
Preston....look, the best thing for you to do on this is just drop it. You stated you were new to this list. Brian's track record along these lines is not the greatest...always seems to get mixed up in some stuff. I just started glancing at his msgs again but, ::sigh:: guess it's just time to ignore them again.
I'm sorry, Brian, but you do always seem to get yourself in bad spots.
sorry for you and everyone else that goes blind reading it.
ain't no sense replying to me...it will be a good while before I ever read one of your post...I just got turned off again.
I wish I could help but I am sure others have tried to make you see what happens.
John Rose
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 23:48 -0500, rado wrote:
I'm sorry, Brian, but you do always seem to get yourself in bad spots.
If people weren't always questioning my motives, we wouldn't have a problem. I have the solution, it's the same solution I used for about 2-3 days, just help people off-list.
Problem solved.
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 07:28 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 23:48 -0500, rado wrote:
I'm sorry, Brian, but you do always seem to get yourself in bad spots.
If people weren't always questioning my motives, we wouldn't have a problem. I have the solution, it's the same solution I used for about 2-3 days, just help people off-list.
---- why not just develop thicker skin?
You tend to drone on and bludgeon everyone with your knowledge which is evidently quite vast.
I recognize that it's just the way you are and don't dwell on it but for the more casual reader, it does get overwhelming.
Just ignore the challenges and keep doing what you are doing - it's not like your gonna change who you are.
I would prefer that you keep the help on list as your help is more valuable than to just one person.
Craig
[ I thought long and hard whether to respond. I'll let my comments stand for themselves. ]
Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
why not just develop thicker skin?
I have, but you only note when I respond. Go back through the archives and note all the times I don't, or on the rarer occasion, someone else does for me. ;->
You tend to drone on and bludgeon everyone with your knowledge which is evidently quite vast.
I won't deny I'm abrasive in the eyes of some, possibly many. But I am _not_ someone who has "vast knowledge." Yes, I have been doing Linux and NT since 1993, and OS/2 and UNIX before that, especially as a hostmaster/postermaster on the Internet from before the web. That's going to bring a lot of things to the table, but there are many other people here who do as well! I recognize this.
In fact, if you track the posts I respond to, I purposely _avoid_ things I do not have "1st hand experience" with. I've only done limited ASP/ISP work, I'm definitely not a web development guru (done a PHP page or two, that's it). My primary roles have been as a network and systems architect (IT) more in the engineering/financial industry (with some layover into educational/medical), and an embedded and even semiconductor design engineer.
I guess I got a bit "giddy" because there was _finally_ someone on the list who did what I did in the mid-'90s, using GNU/Linux and GNU/Solaris as a development platform for targetting other systems. In fact, I noted several people who were not catching that (and even the original poster did), but I was. This is what lead to massive Linux adoption on the desktop in the engineering world (especially aerospace, but also CAM applications, and later, EDA for semicondutor). In fact, this rolls into my next problem.
In the past, we've had people on CentOS flat out state that there was no UNIX/Linux solution for enterprises before ActiveDirectory Service (ADS). And I'm basically pulling my hair out when I see that from supposed Linux advocates! It's not only completely oblivious to those of us who _were_ running Linux in corporations for more than just web services in the '90s, but is just incorrect marketing altogether.
I recognize that it's just the way you are and don't dwell on it but for the more casual reader, it does get overwhelming.
And I can understand that.
But at the same time, I don't like to see select people give me the attitude, "who do you think you are?" I'm just a guy responding where I've had experience, and keeping my mouth 100% shut when I don't. Honestly, when I don't have corporate experience with something, I keep my mouth shut for the most part.
Especially when most of my knowledge comes from areas where Linux is "less known for" because was more popular in the engineering disciplines back in even the '90s. I'm not talking web services, the stealth Samba Print/File server or other things. CAM, EDA, cross-compiling, embedded and, eventually, directory services, etc... I mean, in any given post on directory services, authentication, etc..., it's like those of us who maintained Solaris and Linux systems on the corporate networks of companies in the '90s just ... well ... didn't exist.
Sorry, I got a bit excited when I saw someone who was targetting non-Linux with a GNU/Linux platform.
Just ignore the challenges and keep doing what you are doing - it's not like your gonna change who you are. I would prefer that you keep the help on list as your help is more valuable than to just one person.
Not sure because all it does is get the same repeat traffic. You can't solely blame me for it like they want to, although I understand that if I don't respond, I at least cut it by 50%. ;->
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 13:38, Mike McCarty wrote:
Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before.
Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking if I intend to continue using RH at all.
What he means here is that Fedora corresponds closely to the X.0 releases from RH before the name and numbering scheme change and RHEL corresponds to the X.2 and X.3 RH releases (up through 7.3) in the extent that they are tested. That is, new major version numbers of the upstream packages were rolled into the X.0 releases as in Fedora now. For the X.1, X.2, X.3 releases no 'new feature' changes were done, just security and bugfixes backported out of development work on the packages. Likewise, except for a few things like Mysql 4.x, everything in Centos4 is the same as went through wide use (testing...) in FC3.
I don't know. I am new to Linux. I'm accustomed to Solaris. We weren't asked to upgrade every 6 mos with Solaris. More like every 4-5 years.
I gave up on Solaris many years ago because of this - and the fact that they made you pay to get those long overdue fixes.
Then by the same definition, so was Red Hat Linux.
Ok. Then RHL is beta test.
I think you missed the distinction between the old RHL and RHEL. RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now. RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything fixed. Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely varying conditions and RHEL is where it has accumulated the fixes that no one would have known it needed without the FCx exposure.
And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine.
The part you need to understand is that if you are developing something that will not go into production for a while you probably want to be on the latest FC you can get, because as those base package releases accumulate their own bugfixes, they will become the 'next' stable release of RHEL. And most of the patches go into the upstream package anyway so regardless of the distribution, the versions you find in FC4 right now will be close to what everyone runs in production later on.
Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough.
Right now, Centos4 is a fairly good choice because it is not all that old. If you are running server software it will probably be suitable for a long time. If you are running desktop software you will probably want to update before you are forced to because that is still evolving and improving rapidly - and if you are developing desktop software you will need to be working with the version that will be in use next. Centos3 is still usable as a server but you wouldn't want it as a desktop now.
I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists.
Server-side or a GUI client?
So, what would be wrong with staying with FC2, and using Fedora Legacy in more or less the same manner?
If you watch bugfix updates for FC2 vs Centos3 which is even older, you'll see that legacy fixes aren't a real priority.
Is FC3 really that much different from the last FC2 + all updates
- Legacy?
Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version number updates in upstream packages, where the updates within the release don't.
I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released in the first place?
If it had not been released, the bugs it included would never have been found and fixed. As much as you want to blame RH for pushing out the buggy stuff, you have to give them credit for most of the exposure that results in improvement.
Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 3.
But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should move away from FC2 to FC3.
FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code are fixed, FC4 is just starting. If you run FC3, you want FC3 with current updates.
Also, the firewall prevents sharing with WinXXX, unless it is disabled. I prefer not to run without a firewall.
??? This has nothing to do with Fedora Core.
There is a reported known defect in the firewall for FC4 which prevents using Windows Shares. Why do you say this has nothing to do with FC?
If it is a fedora bug it will get a fix, usually within the same version release. If it is really a kernel/iptables bug it may need a fix in the upstream package.
To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd rather do it less often than more.
That doesn't make much sense. If you care about your data, make backups that will survive whatever happens to the machine. External hard drives, CD and DVD writers are all inexpensive and suitable for this.
So all you will accomplish is a wipe and new install of CentOS 4, only to be disappointed. Which is why I said you might want to try an "yum upgrade" to Fedora Core 3 first.
IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as bad.
No, but as a side effect the jumps are bigger. Centos 3 still runs the 2.4 kernel and is still maintained and usable but because the apps don't get version-level updates it isn't a good choice for a desktop now. Centos 4 is approximately the same 'age' as FC3 so it is more up to date but still well-tested. The jump from FC2 to Centos4 would be approximately the same app-version-wise as FC3 but should be good for several more years.
Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, which has a great deal of stuff installed in it.
You really, really want a backup of that stuff - and generally you want to save the commands to do anything slow or difficult in a script so repeating it becomes painless.
I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might miss from FC in going to CentOS?
It will probably be a long time before you'll get the next Gnome, KDE, Evolution, etc. releases dropped in your lap. With FC, all the new stuff comes with the next release.
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now. RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything fixed. Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely varying conditions
Be _careful_ with that assertion. Because it would also mean that Red Hat Linux 9 was just as much of a X.0 release as Red Hat Linux 8.0. This is simply _not_ true!
Just like it's not true of Fedora Core 1, which many of us considered to be a X.2 release, Fedora Core 3, which many of us consider to be a X.1 release, etc...
Just because Red Hat took away the revisions back after Red Hat Linux 8.0, doesn't mean that Red Hat Linux 9 wasn't a X.1, etc...
and RHEL is where it has accumulated the fixes that no one would have known it needed without the FCx exposure.
Agreed on that point.
Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version number updates in upstream packages, where the updates within the release don't.
Again, I disagree with this assertion on Fedora Core, just like I would on Red Hat Linux 9.
FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code are fixed,
But let us not forget that most of FC3's lessons were based on those learned in FC2. Just like in FC1 from RHL9 and from RHL8 before that, etc..., before a new version was made.
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 16:09, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
RHL X.0 releases were (unofficially) beta like FCx is now. RHL X.2 and X.3 were the same product with about everything fixed. Likewise FCx is where new code first meets widely varying conditions
Be _careful_ with that assertion. Because it would also mean that Red Hat Linux 9 was just as much of a X.0 release as Red Hat Linux 8.0. This is simply _not_ true!
I'll mostly agree, but RH9 was never called 9.0.
Yes, every FC release introduces some new major version number updates in upstream packages, where the updates within the release don't.
Again, I disagree with this assertion on Fedora Core, just like I would on Red Hat Linux 9.
There were differences in how extreme the changes were. I'm not sure you can make any kind of judgement about how big an improvement each was over the last much less a prediction about whether the next version will be.
FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code are fixed,
But let us not forget that most of FC3's lessons were based on those learned in FC2. Just like in FC1 from RHL9 and from RHL8 before that, etc..., before a new version was made.
If you base your logic on the major version numbers of the included packages you can make some kind of point here, but in practice your individual problems are going to be shaken out in some obscure minor-rev update or a backport of something fixed upstream - and these can introduce new problems too. I don't disagree with your observation. I just think it overgeneralizes the issue and it makes more sense to look back at the number of updates in the repository at the end of a cycle to judge how much was broken in the release than to assume that an application version-level jump is going to cause more problems than it solves in the release that introduces it.
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
I'll mostly agree, but RH9 was never called 9.0.
Nor was Fedora Core 1, which was originally named Red Hat Linux 10. Red Hat dropped the revision model for various reasons. I still disagree with that decision to this day, because the 2-2-2 -> 6-6-6 lineage is still there, and it must be for RHEL to maintain quality.
There were differences in how extreme the changes were. I'm not sure you can make any kind of judgement about how big an improvement each was over the last much less a prediction about whether the next version will be.
Since when could you make a prediction on Red Hat Linux?
What many people considered to be the packages in Rawhide, which was basically already headed into Beta, for Red Hat Linux 8.0 was retroverted to Red Hat Linux 7.3 in a matter of weeks, going back to GCC 2.96/3, GLibC 2.2, etc... from GCC 3.1/3.1.9x, GLibC 2.2.9x, etc... that had been in Rawhide until that time.
In fact, Red Hat had a policy of _never_ announcing products in advance, and that last to this day. You have to take each release on the merits of what is included. That's what I do, and I call them how I see the GCC, GLibC, kernel and other core components.
If you base your logic on the major version numbers of the included packages you can make some kind of point here, but in practice your individual problems are going to be shaken out in some obscure minor-rev update or a backport of something fixed upstream - and these can introduce new problems too.
Was this any different in Red Hat Linux before? And that includes Red Hat Linux 7.x, 6.x and even 5.x?
I don't disagree with your observation. I just think it overgeneralizes the issue and it makes more sense to look back at the number of updates in the repository at the end of a cycle to judge how much was broken in the release than to assume that an application version-level jump is going
to
cause more problems than it solves in the release that introduces it.
The reality is that anytime Red Hat adopts major, core component changes, you have to deal with: A) Their immaturity, and B) The fact that a lot of existing code might break
That remains unchanged today, including the fact that Red Hat has releases where they changes lots of things -- introducing that immaturity and breaking compatibility -- and then following-up with one or two more that do not change much.
They just haven't given you any warning of this since Red Hat Linux 9.
Les Mikesell wrote:
I appreciate your response.
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 13:38, Mike McCarty wrote:
Just as everyone said about Red Hat Linux 5.0, Red Hat Linux 7.0 and, to a lesser extend, Red Hat Linux 6.0 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 before.
Hmm. Maybe what you're saying is that RH altogether is not what I had in mind. Or that I'll have to adjust my thinking if I intend to continue using RH at all.
What he means here is that Fedora corresponds closely to the X.0 releases from RH before the name and numbering scheme change and RHEL corresponds to the X.2 and X.3 RH releases (up through 7.3) in the extent that they are tested. That is, new major version numbers of the upstream packages were rolled into the X.0 releases as in Fedora now. For the X.1, X.2, X.3 releases no 'new feature' changes were done, just security and bugfixes backported out of development work on the packages. Likewise, except for a few things like Mysql 4.x, everything in Centos4 is the same as went through wide use (testing...) in FC3.
Ok. Thanks. I'm not familiar with the history of Red Hat. But what you say makes sense in light of what I have experienced over on the FCx mail echo.
[snip]
[snip]
And I appreciate your efforts, here. I'm not sure "blame" is the right word. As I said, no criticism intended. It is whatever it is. I'm trying to evaluate what is best for my situation. What is best for yours may not be what is best for mine.
The part you need to understand is that if you are developing something that will not go into production for a while you probably want to be on the latest FC you can get, because as those base package releases accumulate their own bugfixes, they will become the 'next' stable release of RHEL. And most of the patches go into the upstream package anyway so regardless of the distribution, the versions you find in FC4 right now will be close to what everyone runs in production later on.
Umm, I think perhaps you missed the fact that the target system does not run Linux.
Ok, that seems fair enough. Perhaps simply watching FC closely and "upgrading" on my own schedule (not theirs) is good enough.
Right now, Centos4 is a fairly good choice because it is not all that old. If you are running server software it will probably be suitable for a long time. If you are running desktop software you will probably want to update before you are forced to because that is still evolving and improving rapidly - and if you are developing desktop software you will need to be working with the version that will be in use next. Centos3 is still usable as a server but you wouldn't want it as a desktop now.
I'm not running server, but desktop. The purpose of the desktop is building and testing new releases of the software, and as a repository for CVS source libraries. I am developing desktop software, but no GUI is involved. The target system does not run Linux.
I am doing contract work on software for pharmacists.
Server-side or a GUI client?
Non-GUI client.
[snip]
I wonder why the pressure to move on? I get advice from time to time on the FC echo making it sound like FC2 is a danger just being on my machine. But if it's sooooo bad, then why was it released in the first place?
If it had not been released, the bugs it included would never have been found and fixed. As much as you want to blame RH for pushing out the buggy stuff, you have to give them credit for most of the exposure that results in improvement.
I really don't like the word blame here. I was requested by a fellow at the company I'm doing development for to install FC2 on my machine. I did that, but I'm not sure he knew the full implications of that decision. I know that I certainly did not. Doing development on a system which requires re-installs every few months because of newly-found defects doesn't sound all that wise.
Fedora Core 4 is another shift, although not nearly as bad as Fedora Core 3.
But you have suggested with some amount of force that I should move away from FC2 to FC3.
FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code
Couldn't this same argument be made for FC2? I've put myself on the Legacy update notification, and have used yum over a dozen times, but not downloaded one single fix.
To put it another way: every install/upgrade/whatever one runs the risk of data loss. Since data in this case is my livlihood, I'd rather do it less often than more.
That doesn't make much sense. If you care about your data, make backups that will survive whatever happens to the machine. External hard drives, CD and DVD writers are all inexpensive and suitable for this.
Certainly, the data are backed up. It's the hassle of re-installation of all the packages and re-creating the work environment. The actual CVS repository is not on my machine. It's my stuff, not the company I'm contracting for, that I'm concerned about. I don't want 2-4 days downtime while I try to reconfigure.
[snip]
IIU you, you're saying that the churn in CentOS is just about as bad.
No, but as a side effect the jumps are bigger. Centos 3 still runs the 2.4 kernel and is still maintained and usable but because the apps don't get version-level updates it isn't a good choice for a desktop now. Centos 4 is approximately the same 'age' as FC3 so it is more up to date but still well-tested. The jump from FC2 to Centos4 would be approximately the same app-version-wise as FC3 but should be good for several more years.
That's very good information to have. Thanks.
Since I am a complete newbie to *NIX admin, I find it somewhat daunting to contemplate a wipe/reinstall. I don't want, for example, to have to re-build and re-install the cross-compiler which targets MSDOS. And other applications. And my /home tree, which has a great deal of stuff installed in it.
You really, really want a backup of that stuff - and generally you want to save the commands to do anything slow or difficult in a script so repeating it becomes painless.
Ah, there's the rub. Knowing *what* to back up is the issue. It appears that every version of *NIX has a different list of what need backup. Clearly on FCx one needs to back up /home/... probably also /etc/... and /var/... Or does one? Much of the stuff in /etc/... is also stuff simply used to configure GNOME, and whatnot. Yes, just go ahead, get it all. It's only something like 60MB on my machine (/etc/...). But how much of it do I need to restore? I plunked down $50 USD last weekend on a book on Linux administration, which looks pretty good. But a 40 page chapter on backup (entirely too much of which was spent on explaining why one should back up) never even mentioned how to go about installing a new version of Linux and getting going again. Complete disaster recovery (I didn't need that, it's the same for every system) and general backup were considered. But not much else.
Not complaining, this is a really nice book. But it seems that Linux admin is something which people still intend to be learned either as an apprenticeship or via hard knocks.
I guess I'm pretty ignorant about this. What do you think I might miss from FC in going to CentOS?
It will probably be a long time before you'll get the next Gnome, KDE, Evolution, etc. releases dropped in your lap. With FC, all the new stuff comes with the next release.
I'm not interested in the latest GNOME or KDE releases. I'm pretty much indifferent to them. I use them only to manage windows with command-line text in them. If they currently allow me to configure a new printer, or find another machine and use its discs, then I'm happy.
Actually, I'd prefer that they not change. I tried FC4, and had problems with finding where several things moved to. They changed the menu layout. I don't need that. I just want a computer which works. Having to learn all over again where to find the system configuration widgets is undesireable.
Mike
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 00:41, Mike McCarty wrote:
FC3 is at the end of the cycle where the new bugs in the new code
Couldn't this same argument be made for FC2? I've put myself on the Legacy update notification, and have used yum over a dozen times, but not downloaded one single fix.
FC2 won't break just because its old, but on the other hand no one is very interested in maintaining it. The whole purpose of the FC distributions is to roll out new stuff and backporting fixes into old versions isn't fun or interesting.
That doesn't make much sense. If you care about your data, make backups that will survive whatever happens to the machine. External hard drives, CD and DVD writers are all inexpensive and suitable for this.
Certainly, the data are backed up. It's the hassle of re-installation of all the packages and re-creating the work environment. The actual CVS repository is not on my machine. It's my stuff, not the company I'm contracting for, that I'm concerned about. I don't want 2-4 days downtime while I try to reconfigure.
If you keep a copy of your home directory, a snapshot of /etc and copies of anything you've installed that didn't come from the distribution you should be able to be up on a new installation about as fast as you can copy it back. You shouldn't actually copy most of the files in /etc back to a different distribution but they are handy for reference if you forget how something was previously configured.
Ah, there's the rub. Knowing *what* to back up is the issue. It appears that every version of *NIX has a different list of what need backup. Clearly on FCx one needs to back up /home/... probably also /etc/... and /var/... Or does one? Much of the stuff in /etc/... is also stuff simply used to configure GNOME, and whatnot. Yes, just go ahead, get it all. It's only something like 60MB on my machine (/etc/...). But how much of it do I need to restore?
If you want to reconstruct exactly what you had before (say after replacing a bad drive) you could copy it all back. But if you are updating to a newer or different distribution you only want to duplicate the changes you had done yourself. The longer you go between updates the harder this is until you learn to plan for it because you'll forget all the little things you've added and changed. You should log all the changes you make and why you made them. Packages in the distribution or extras repository are as simple as 'yum install ..." to grab if you miss them in the initial setup. However, if you pick up rpm packages that aren't included in you should keep copies and note the location to check for updated versions. If you compile anything from source yourself that needs more than the usual "./configure; make; make install" to build, you should save the commands in a script that you can run again to repeat the procedure later.
I plunked down $50 USD last weekend on a book on Linux administration, which looks pretty good. But a 40 page chapter on backup (entirely too much of which was spent on explaining why one should back up) never even mentioned how to go about installing a new version of Linux and getting going again.
The process is much more complicated on multiuser systems where the admin may not know everything that users have added for themselves and what programs must continue to work. Often you have to time those updates to match hardware changes so you can build everything on a new box and test it while still keeping the old one in production until you are sure it all works. On a single user box all you have to do is copy your own files back and re-install any nonstandard programs.
Complete disaster recovery (I didn't need that, it's the same for every system) and general backup were considered. But not much else.
There is not a generic way to keep settings while going from one distribution to another or even one distro version to the next. FC/RHEL are moderately good about upgrading themselves but it is still safer to do a clean install and put your stuff back. Or, you can compromise by keeping /home on its own partition and not formatting it during the next install.
Actually, I'd prefer that they not change. I tried FC4, and had problems with finding where several things moved to. They changed the menu layout. I don't need that. I just want a computer which works. Having to learn all over again where to find the system configuration widgets is undesireable.
Centos4 sounds like a good choice then.
Les Mikesell wrote:
[snip]
Centos4 sounds like a good choice then.
Thank you for the thoughtful and informative post.
Mike
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 00:41 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ok. Thanks. I'm not familiar with the history of Red Hat. But what you say makes sense in light of what I have experienced over on the FCx mail echo.
I apologize if I "overloaded" you. I'm not going to do it anymore to anyone, I'll just post links to the archives or the old FAQ I have.
Umm, I think perhaps you missed the fact that the target system does not run Linux.
I didn't. In fact, I'm glad to see someone else who has used GNU/Linux to target other platforms. [ Love to talk off-list sometime ]
Couldn't this same argument be made for FC2? I've put myself on the Legacy update notification, and have used yum over a dozen times, but not downloaded one single fix.
Well, I've made my recommendation. You're fine with your FC2 setup, tap Legacy if you need to. Consider CentOS 4 when you want to install another development system.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 00:41 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ok. Thanks. I'm not familiar with the history of Red Hat. But what you say makes sense in light of what I have experienced over on the FCx mail echo.
I apologize if I "overloaded" you. I'm not going to do it anymore to anyone, I'll just post links to the archives or the old FAQ I have.
I didn't notice any overload.
BTW, I've been doing cross-development since about 1985 (though not using Linux as the development platform).
Umm, I think perhaps you missed the fact that the target system does not run Linux.
I didn't. In fact, I'm glad to see someone else who has used GNU/Linux to target other platforms. [ Love to talk off-list sometime ]
I directed that at Les Mikesell, to whom I replied.
Shoot me an e-mail and we'll talk.
Couldn't this same argument be made for FC2? I've put myself on the Legacy update notification, and have used yum over a dozen times, but not downloaded one single fix.
Well, I've made my recommendation. You're fine with your FC2 setup, tap Legacy if you need to. Consider CentOS 4 when you want to install another development system.
Thanks. My point here was, apparently there is nothing serious enough wrong with FC2 to warrant Legacy fixing, and which I have installed.
I really didn't install much beyond the core, GNOME, KDE, development package (GCC toolset) and Open Office. That's about it.
Mike
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch, and not on stability,
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 13:38 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Not true, not true at all. Fedora Core is modeled after the same Red Hat Linux model ... Again, the 2+2+2 model was not only proven in Red Hat Linux, it's not only still used in Fedora Core, but as I mentioned, Red Hat Linux "hit" the 6 months continually (give or take 2-3 weeks) -- over _14_ releases!
I know this is a thread long removed, but I wanted to point something out.
Fedora Core 4 actually slipped to almost 7 months -- the first time that had ever happened (except for the Red Hat Linux 10 to Fedora Core 1 switchover). FC3 = 2004 Nov 08 FC4 = 2005 Jun 13
The current, projected roadmap for Fedora Core 5 looks to be 8 months, circa 2006 Feb. And don't be surprised if that slips to even 9 months!
So the reality is actually looking like Red Hat is (even if indirectly) extending development time on Fedora Core. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the "epoch"** is actually removed since Fedora Core is not managed a product like Red Hat Linux was.
But a release every 7-9 months sorta makes sense since it now seems that an 18-month enterprise release comes out every 2 community releases. There's no pre-set, pre-announced, fixed community release schedule, and Red Hat has never had such in its entire history.
**NOTE: One thing to keep-in-mind is that any comments on Fedora Core are made with regard to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, _not_ Red Hat Linux. A lot of people forget that context.
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 00:27 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Actually, my comment applied to the Fedora Core Project, not to FC2 specifically. The releases take place based on epoch, and not on stability,
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 13:38 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Not true, not true at all. Fedora Core is modeled after the same Red Hat Linux model ... Again, the 2+2+2 model was not only proven in Red Hat Linux, it's not only still used in Fedora Core, but as I mentioned, Red Hat Linux "hit" the 6 months continually (give or take 2-3 weeks) -- over _14_ releases!
I know this is a thread long removed, but I wanted to point something out.
Fedora Core 4 actually slipped to almost 7 months -- the first time that had ever happened (except for the Red Hat Linux 10 to Fedora Core 1 switchover). FC3 = 2004 Nov 08 FC4 = 2005 Jun 13
The current, projected roadmap for Fedora Core 5 looks to be 8 months, circa 2006 Feb. And don't be surprised if that slips to even 9 months!
This is planned ... they are working on integrating yum with installer so that they can lighten down the install disks and use fedora extras during install time. There was a "vote" on extending FC5 release so that the installer and other changes that could not be done piecemeal between FC 5 & 6 could be done.
So the reality is actually looking like Red Hat is (even if indirectly) extending development time on Fedora Core. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the "epoch"** is actually removed since Fedora Core is not managed a product like Red Hat Linux was.
But a release every 7-9 months sorta makes sense since it now seems that an 18-month enterprise release comes out every 2 community releases. There's no pre-set, pre-announced, fixed community release schedule, and Red Hat has never had such in its entire history.
Yes it looks that way, I was going to comment on the fact the last time you mentioned the 6-6-6 cycle. I figured it was not important enough to start a discussion about.
From my personal observation of the fedora-devel list its seeming like
RHEL 5 will be based on FC 5 with some add-ons/fixes.
Paul
Paul subsolar@subsolar.com wrote:
This is planned ... they are working on integrating yum with installer so that they can lighten down the install disks and use fedora extras during install time. There was a "vote" on extending FC5 release so that the installer and other changes that could not be done piecemeal between FC 5 & 6 could be done.
Oh, I wasn't questioning it. Someone had previously mentioned (like I've heard countless times) that Fedora Core is released on an "epoch" (time) basis. I was just further pointing out that such statements are not true at all. Fedora Core is released after the Development/Rawhide to Test/Beta cycle is completed, and _not_ before.
Furthermore, too many people don't realize that Fedora Core is compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the Red Hat/Fedora pages, and _not_ Red Hat Linux prior. A lot of pundits like to bring that up. There are virtually _no_ comparisons between Fedora Core and Red Hat Linux on the pages, because Red Hat Linux is gone. The few times you'll see anything is when they talk about lineage and the "logical upgrade path."
Yes it looks that way, I was going to comment on the fact the last time you mentioned the 6-6-6 cycle. I figured it was not important enough to start a discussion about. From my personal observation of the fedora-devel list its seeming like RHEL 5 will be based on FC 5 with some add-ons/fixes.
Yep. Although I'd really like to see them go back to revisions, even if it means only a .0 and .1. But that's another story.
Sorry I brought up this tangent, but I thought it was important to correct a lot of assumptions that had come up prior -- including showing that the Fedora Core team has no problem not meeting dates to ship a quality release.
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental nature and a shorter life cycle.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Yes. CentOS is very Fedoraesque. It even uses yum.
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible.
On 8/16/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazquez@ivazquez.net wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental nature and a shorter life cycle.
I'd say that's up for debate. I don't enjoy constantly refreshing Fedora installs on my desktop so I use CentOS. Of course, opinions are like kids (everyone has one and only theirs is right)... <snip>
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible.
You may have some luck following the steps for upgrading a FC3-FC4 installation:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq
Greg
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:15 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental nature and a shorter life cycle.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Yes. CentOS is very Fedoraesque. It even uses yum.
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible.
...agree w/all the above. A few months back, I went thru this exact same senario. I really was/am a fedora fan just for what it is and the fedora list people..they great! But, hey, I am new and still fighting the learn curve but have servers up and running. I had a really bad experience thru my own fault, moving from fc 2 to 3 ...lost the whole enchillada. Anyway, It did get me thinking that I really was not pleased at all w/the very short time til legacy was gone...push came to shove...some people on the fedora list turned me on to Centos which I had never heard of! I love the distant future to have to face legacy things and it's still the same subject matter...I am running 3 boxes which used to be fc3 and now are centos and I think it's at least 1 thing I have done right lately!
There again, I agree w/Ignacio and Brian Smith on this for sure...Hey now, Fedora is cool but every couple months you gotta go major w/it by definition.
John Rose
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Craig White -
Greg Knaddison -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Les Mikesell -
Mike McCarty -
Paul -
Preston Crawford -
rado