An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • tool
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fedora isn’t the testing distribution for RHEL, CentOS is. Fedora is upstream of CentOS and could be viewed as the bleeding edge in that regard. CentOS used to be downstream of RHEL, but that changed a few years ago when IBM did its first shitty thing at Red Hat. The tree is like:

    Fedora (Top of code stream, “unstable” from a business perspective)

    |

    |

    v

    CentOS (midstream, much less frequent feature updates)

    |

    |

    v

    RHEL (end of stream, stable/predictable/reliable/etc)

    And I couldn’t disagree more about RHEL adding little value. You’re not going to run a server on Fedora for something you want/need to rely on, and especially rely on not to change much/cause breaking changes. That’s what RHEL is for and it is the gold standard in that regard.

    And that’s not even mentioning the fact that Red Hat support is some of the absolute best in the world. Motherfuckers will write a bespoke kernel module for you if that’s what it takes to fix your issue. Not sure if that’s still true after the IBM takeover though, but that was my experience with them before that.

    • poVoq
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      You can absolutely run important services on Fedora server edition. Most of the stuff in containerized anyways, so having a more up to date version of the base system is actually an advantage.

      It is really only those large corps with massive closed source lagacy applications and loads of compliance regulation that need a stale but long term supported distribution like RHEL.