Hello, all. New to list.
I hope this isn't an FAQ. I looked at the FAQs I could find,
and didn't see it.
I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2
on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have
tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is
more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development
work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.
So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since
CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of
Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if
the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say
Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter
novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)
Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS
4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?
Thanks all in advance for replies.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:> I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 > on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have > tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is > more or less beta test, and not really suitable for > development work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.First off, understand Fedora Core 2 was a "new version." It was a radical change from Red Hat Linux 8, 9 and Fedora Core 1 which made up the previous version. Fedora Core 3 is far more reliable, because it is the next revision of the same version as Fedora Core 2. It's like saying Red Hat Linux 7.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 7.0, Red Hat Linux 5.2 is beta based on only using Red Hat Linux 5.0, etc... Revisions meant everything in Red Hat Linux, and I now they are gone with Fedora Core. So it's not that you are "wrong," it's more like "you weren't warned." With Fedora Core, they've taken away revisioning, so there's just no way to know. I purposely did _not_ upgrade to Fedora Core 2 from Fedora Core 1 until Fedora Core 3 was almost out, and in some cases, I waited on Fedora Core 3. Same deal now for Fedora Core 4, I'm waiting on Fedora Core 5 instead, sticking with Fedora Core 3 for now. It's no different than when people waited for Red Hat Linux 5.1, Red Hat Linux 7.1, Red Hat Linux 9 (being the next revision after 8), etc... You almost _never_ run the "first .0 revision" of any new 6-month Red Hat release.> So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment.Fedora Core 3 is typically a "yum upgrade" away. Just install the new "fedora-release" RPM for Fedora Core 3 and run "yum upgrade" (not "yum update"). There can be a few issues, but for the most part, it works well.> Since CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major > Vendor Of Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless,So is Fedora Core. Make no mistake, the people paid by Red Hat who work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages _also_ maintain the _same_ Fedora Core packages. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just what we get after several revisions of Fedora Core, and the focus is far more static when they do. If Red Hat didn't pay people to work on Fedora Core as part of their regular function for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as the quality of the former suffers, so would the latter. Because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the 18-month version, based on the 2-3 revisions of the 6-month released Red Hat distribution fka Red Hat Linux now Fedora Core. Most of the early naysayers on Fedora Core have been silenced by the quality of Fedora Core 1 and, even more so, Fedora Core 3. Fedora Core 5 should be an improvement from Fedora Core 4, just as Fedora Core 2 was.> I was wondering if the transition might be easier to CentOs > rather than, say Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a > Harry Potter novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)Oh, definitely. I maintain Debian and Gentoo systems, but if you're coming from a Red Hat distro, RHEL/CentOS is virtually *0* change from RHL/FC.> Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to > CentOS 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?You'd want to upgrade to FC3 before attempting an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. The latter are _subsets_ in packages compared to the former, so you're going to have issues. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:> I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 > on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have > tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is > more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development > work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental nature and a shorter life cycle.> So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since > CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of > Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if > the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say > Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter > novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.)Yes. CentOS is very Fedoraesque. It even uses yum.> Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS > 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore?A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net> http://centos.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050816/ed3c7195/attachment-0002.sig>
On 8/16/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net> wrote:> On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > > I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 > > on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have > > tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is > > more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development > > work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong. > > This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers > or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that > doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental > nature and a shorter life cycle.I'd say that's up for debate. I don't enjoy constantly refreshing Fedora installs on my desktop so I use CentOS. Of course, opinions are like kids (everyone has one and only theirs is right)... <snip>> > Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS > > 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore? > > A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible. >You may have some luck following the steps for upgrading a FC3-FC4 installation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq Greg
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 19:15 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:> On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 17:05 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > > I am doing contract work, and was requested to install FC2 > > on my machine (last October). Since doing that, I have > > tentatively concluded that the Fedora Core Project is > > more or less beta test, and not really suitable for development > > work. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong. > > This is in fact incorrect. CentOS is a better choice for remote servers > or machines that you don't want to upgrade every year or so, but that > doesn't make Fedora "beta" quality. It just has a more experimental > nature and a shorter life cycle. > > > So I am considering a hop to a more stable environment. Since > > CentOS is akin to The Product Produced By A Major Vendor Of > > Linux Software Who Shall Remain Nameless, I was wondering if > > the transition might be easier to CentOs rather than, say > > Debian. (Makes me feel like I'm reading a Harry Potter > > novel about He Who Shall Not Be Named.) > > Yes. CentOS is very Fedoraesque. It even uses yum. > > > Is there any reasonable hope of an "upgrade" from FC2 to CentOS > > 4.1 or should/must I backup, install, and restore? > > A clean install is recommended, although an upgrade may be possible....agree w/all the above. A few months back, I went thru this exact same senario. I really was/am a fedora fan just for what it is and the fedora list people..they great! But, hey, I am new and still fighting the learn curve but have servers up and running. I had a really bad experience thru my own fault, moving from fc 2 to 3 ...lost the whole enchillada. Anyway, It did get me thinking that I really was not pleased at all w/the very short time til legacy was gone...push came to shove...some people on the fedora list turned me on to Centos which I had never heard of! I love the distant future to have to face legacy things and it's still the same subject matter...I am running 3 boxes which used to be fc3 and now are centos and I think it's at least 1 thing I have done right lately! There again, I agree w/Ignacio and Brian Smith on this for sure...Hey now, Fedora is cool but every couple months you gotta go major w/it by definition. John Rose -- My wife is always bitching..."I'm so sick of diapers!". I don't know why she's bitching at me...it's her mom and dad not mine!