On 1 November 2013 12:49, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
Hash: SHA1

One of the oft-repeated statements about Fedora is that it's "not good
for running a server". Clearly, as we embark upon a mission to change
that fundamental belief, we need to start addressing the problems that
make Fedora unsuitable to so many people.

I propose that a good place to start here is to carefully enumerate
the reasons people elect not to use Fedora in their server
environments. Let's start by gathering the surface problems (in some
cases, the cargo-cult explanations) and look into what is the real
underlying problem and how we can fix it with the Fedora Server offering.

To get us started:

 * Fedora moves too quickly!
   Historically, Fedora's policy has always been to be among thefirst
   to ship new technology (whether or not it's ready, but that's another
   discussion). The problem with tracking rapidly-moving upstreams is
   that they are not all created equally. Some upstreams (e.g. glibc)
   obsessively avoid backwards-compatible changes between versions.
   These are the upstreams that Fedora's current approach works well
   for. These tend to be the low-level features of the operating system
   that understand that compatibility == relevance. No one will build
   atop these systems if they don't have a guarantee that it will
   continue to work. Other upstreams (e.g. much of the Ruby and Java
   community) tend to focus more on constant innovation without
   consideration of backporting. This allows them to make bigger changes
   much faster, but at the cost of constant churn and difficulty to
   distribution packaging. These are the systems that normally expect
   consuming applications to just bundle the exact version of the
   library known to work. This is where we get into the "Fedora moves
   too quickly" area of things. Whatever we're shipping in the standard
   location on-disk tends to be preferred by the applications, and if it
   isn't the same version that upstream wanted to bundle, all bets are

I did an informal poll of places I worked at that used to be Red Hat Linux or such and are now using other OS's. The overall answer for them was that perceived problem with Fedora is that it has a 3 month lifetime. That is the time between release and next beta when every developers attention switches to and support of the told release is 'done' in cases of deep problems. And between release N and release N+1 there was too much change with little integration or available training so that by the time something was learned it was all thrown away with a new 3 month lifetime.

Stephen J Smoogen.