On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 12:40 -0800, Curtis Doty wrote:
2:42pm seth vidal said:
> On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 13:59 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a "Server" spin to me.
> >
> > One thing we want to be very clear is that this is NOT designed for mission
> > critical or even production systems, especially with just a 13month life
> > span, and rapid adoption of new releases rather than backports. While it has
> > the name "server" it means that this is useful if you're setting
up a server,
> > not that we're going to offer any kind of support, do anything different
for
> > the updates, etc...
>
> +1
>
> -sv
>
Sure, but a rapid devel cycle is no excuse for a crappy OS. :-/
Looking back at the Fedora releases, I don't think one can say we've had
to make many excuses.
Consider that if the Fedora 7 Server has the admittedly idealistic
goal of
being mission critical--for just 13 months--it would be much better
quality for *any* use.
We strive for a solid, stable release each and every time and the
results have generally been very positive. I use Fedora for many
applications at $DAYJOB for both individual and shared resources, but I
wouldn't call them "mission critical." Mission critical applications
without SLAs attached are wanking, pure and simple.
There's no reason dedicated (read: "foolhardy") individuals couldn't
set
up a commercial interest in providing SLAs for Fedora, but expecting
them from a volunteer community is unreasonable. Fedora is about rapid
advancement balanced with stability ("Cutting edge without the blood").
Let's not hijack this thread with yet another lifecycle debate. :-)
(Feel free to start a new thread, though.)
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project Board:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
Fedora Docs Project:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject