[CentOS] Re: Contemplating Move -- [OT] Fedora Core

[Mike McCarty]

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
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!