[COLUG] Re: Fedora on production servers

[Jason]

The primary argument I have heard of for supporting use of CentOS over
Fedora is that CentOS has a long lifecycle, (releases are supported
for something like 7 years).   Fedora releases are more frequent and
they are generally supported for over a year.

The second argument is that CentOS, like Debian, is supposedly tested
more rigorously than Fedora.  If you do your own thorough testing
anyway and you rely primarily on the kernel, I think Fedora is easier
to manage then RHEL.

One of the advantages of running RHEL, is that when you install things
like Oracle, Websphere, etc. they installers will validate your system
as a supported platform.  That and the lengthy lifetime of each
release are about the only advantages RHEL seems to have.

RHEL's 'up2date' sucks, in my opinion.  I prefer yum, but redhat will
want you to use up2date if you are paying support.  up2date collects a
lot more information for the Redhat network, but it's just eyecandy to
me.   I have been using it recently, due to a donation of rhel ws4
from a relative.

How often you want to upgrade your production machine (I like to
upgrade every 2 to 3 years)?  If > 3yr. avoid Fedora.  Try CentOS
first, because Redhat looks stale (it still looks like redhat 9 with
no real significant improvement on tools, etc).

Do you use any $$ commercial apps, such as Oracle, Websphere,
Weblogic?  Stick with what they support (RHEL most likely), CentOS if
possible.

If you use Open Source, need recent kernel support, and don't mind
upgrading every year or two, Fedora is very nice, in my experience.  I
use it on all of my desktops (and one install on an external 2.5" usb
drive).

All that said, if I had to choose for "production", I would use
CentOS.  Just don't leave the default CentOS website up when you put
it into production for political organization websites.

On 8/18/06, Dane Miller <dane at olneyfriends.org> wrote:
> I'm a Debian fan, but have learned a lot about the rpm world of
> RHEL/Fedora/Centos from various Colug-ers.  One such kernel of received
> wisdom was "Fedora is not for production" -- use CentOS or RHEL instead.
> (Rusty, do I correctly remember your voice being particularly loud on
> this?)
>
> Fedora project leader Max Spevack writes a thoughtful response to this
> specific accusation on Slashdot today
> (http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/17/177220).
> Specifically:
>    "We strive to produce a quality distribution of free software that is
> cutting-edge, pushes the envelope of new open source technology, and is
> also robust enough that it can be relied on for server or desktop use."
>
> So has Fedora changed since it's inception?  Who uses Fedora in
> production?  For what task?  Why?
>
> Anyone care to share their experience on Fedora buginess?  On Fedora
> advantages?
>
> I'm referring specifically to always-on boxes performing "server" roles.
> Not desktops.
>
> Dane
>
>