server, workstation services
in [General Linux]
|
From: General Schvantzkoph on 25 Jul 2010 07:45 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:27:02 +0200, David Brown wrote: > On 25/07/2010 06:24, General Schvantzkoph wrote: >> >>> That was the original idea of Fedora, but it's not really true any >>> more. >>> Fedora is a side project rather than a testing ground - it aims to >>> be >>> as close to cutting-edge as possible while still being very stable. >>> Redhat will, of course, take the best from Fedora's experience and use >>> it in RHEL - but Fedora is not a testing ground for RHEL. There is a >>> lot that goes into RHEL that was not in Fedora (at least, not in a >>> standard install - maybe available in extra packages), and vice versa. >> >> Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. There are lot's of >> things that are in Fedora that aren't in RHEL, for example Xemacs, but >> I don't think that there is anything in RHEL that isn't available in >> Fedora. I should mention that a number of the missing packages in RHEL >> are available from the EPEL project but these packages are provided on >> the same terms as Fedora, i.e. community support only. Redhat's reason >> for offering a minimal set of packages in RHEL is that they have to >> control their support costs because that's what they are selling. It's >> not because the packages are unstable, you certainly couldn't accuse >> Xemacs of being unstable, it's just that they can't provide official >> support for everything in the Linux universe and still make money. >> >> > I guess you are right here - since everything (AFAIK) in RHEL is open > source, it will all be available for Fedora somewhere. I think I was > trying to say that there were things in RHEL that are not in the > standard Fedora repositories - but as you say, they are available in > other places like EPEL. Thanks for correcting me. EPEL is Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux, it contains Fedora packages that have been compiled for RHEL. The Fusion repositories are available for both Fedora and RHEL. Unlike EPEL which Redhat hosts, Fusion is a third party repository because it contain packages that are in a legal gray area like media codecs.
From: Robert Heller on 25 Jul 2010 08:22 At Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:27:02 +0200 David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > > On 25/07/2010 06:24, General Schvantzkoph wrote: > > > >> That was the original idea of Fedora, but it's not really true any more. > >> Fedora is a side project rather than a testing ground - it aims to be > >> as close to cutting-edge as possible while still being very stable. > >> Redhat will, of course, take the best from Fedora's experience and use > >> it in RHEL - but Fedora is not a testing ground for RHEL. There is a > >> lot that goes into RHEL that was not in Fedora (at least, not in a > >> standard install - maybe available in extra packages), and vice versa. > > > > Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. There are lot's of > > things that are in Fedora that aren't in RHEL, for example Xemacs, but I > > don't think that there is anything in RHEL that isn't available in > > Fedora. I should mention that a number of the missing packages in RHEL > > are available from the EPEL project but these packages are provided on > > the same terms as Fedora, i.e. community support only. Redhat's reason > > for offering a minimal set of packages in RHEL is that they have to > > control their support costs because that's what they are selling. It's > > not because the packages are unstable, you certainly couldn't accuse > > Xemacs of being unstable, it's just that they can't provide official > > support for everything in the Linux universe and still make money. > > > > I guess you are right here - since everything (AFAIK) in RHEL is open > source, it will all be available for Fedora somewhere. I think I was There might be a couple of 'value added' packages that are not open source in RHEL, plus the official RHEL packages contain things like RedHat's trademark images, etc. CentOS (and other oss 'clones' of RHEL) have some packages altered to replace RedHat's trademarked images with alternitive images. I do know that each RHEL major release (X.0) represents a 'freeze' of a some version of Fedora -- that is, when RedHat relases a new RHEL major release it assembles the set of packages from some version of Fedora, possibly after patching it. > trying to say that there were things in RHEL that are not in the > standard Fedora repositories - but as you say, they are available in > other places like EPEL. Thanks for correcting me. > > > -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database heller(a)deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
From: Maxwell Lol on 25 Jul 2010 08:34 General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. Stability?
From: General Schvantzkoph on 25 Jul 2010 12:44 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:34:42 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote: > General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. > > Stability? We were talking about functionality not stability. Fedora has much more functionality then RHEL, it also has much better hardware compatibility. What RHEL has that Fedora doesn't is long term software compatibility. If you have a piece of commercial software that's been certified for RHEL you know that you'll be able to run it forever, if you try to run it on Fedora eventually it will break as Fedora diverges farther and farther from the point at which that particular version of RHEL was forked. My solution for the software compatibility problem is to run CentOS VMs on top of Fedora which gives me both hardware and software compatibility. I think the difference in long term support is much less than it used to be. Until relatively recently the only reliable way to upgrade Fedora was to do a clean install which was required at least once a year, RHEL/CentOS could be kept current with just yum updates. However Fedora's inplace upgrade mechanism seems to be working pretty well now, I've upgraded several systems from F11->F12->F13 using preupgrade. I'm not convinced that it's bulletproof yet but I think it's likely that it will come close enough so that it should be possible to keep a Fedora system up to date for a long time using just Yum.
From: someone on 28 Jul 2010 00:38
In article <20100722110233.02ef68cf(a)stimpy.site> mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 22 Jul 2010 11:53:38 GMT >General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:36:36 -0700, annalissa wrote: > >> > what is the linux equivalent services of server & workstation >> > services in windows XP ? >> >> Could you be more specific? Which services? > >That would be my question too. I suggest that you and the others who responded take a look at the services in Windows. |