[CLUG] RE: Fedora Core 1 Released

[David Dorgan]

> Might I ask why?
> Even RedHat don't class it as production quality and they've shipped some
> crap in their time.
> What happened to the days of running "stable" systems until an act of god,
> raft of exploits, new hardware or sheer age forced a change?

Exploits happen, if you want features, you get exploits,
some of my boxes run publicfile , qmail and openssh only,
yet I still have problems (sure djb could write a sshd,
but I'm sure he'd call all other ssh clients/server retarded
and refuse to shake hands with them :o) ).
On the other side would be servers with oracle, tomcat, lalal.

It's a tradeoff, as regards exploits, education is key,
mind you, not even that will solve the problem (e.g. exploits
in openssh code for example).

Anyway, as regards stable, stable isn't a state, it's a changing
process, if you think in terms of services rather than servers
stability can come easier. In any production network, you should
be able to pull any machine, at any time, and the system
should automatically change to reflect this without any humans
doing anything. The more services you have, the more times
something has to go down, also machines DO NEED to go down,
thus if you enter into design with that mindset (or changing
the system/network), then pulling machines for upgrades
shouldn't be a problem.
</rant>

Also as regards stable, it's target is a the desktop,
not the server. Redhat enterprise has a target of the server
market, slower release cycles etc, which is fine, but
how many times do you hear people bitch about
debian 'being behind,' if they can bother to upgrade to unstable
(which it rarely is to be honest), they'll find it's
mostly as up to date as most other linux, desktop targeted systems.

David.