Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora Legacy Shutting Down

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the yum-update-and-pray dept.

Red Hat Software 180

An anonymous reader writes to pass on the news that the Fedora Legacy project is going away. The project has been providing security updates and critical bugfixes to end-of-life Red Hat and Fedora Core releases. From the article: "In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project is in the process of shutting down. The current model for supporting maintenance distributions is being re-examined. In the meantime, we are unable to extend support to older Fedora Core releases as we had planned. As of now, Fedora Core 4 and earlier distributions are no longer being maintained. Discussions... on the #Fedora-Legacy channel have brought to light the fact that certain Fedora Legacy properties (servers) may be going away soon, such as the repository at http://download.fedoralegacy.org and the build server."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Justification? (-1, Troll)

bwoodring (101515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418022)

How are the Linux fans are going to justify Red Hat fucking them this way?

Re:Justification? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418090)

You mean, how are Linux fans going to justify Red Hat not supporting the older versions of software that doesn't cost anything? Technically Red Hat doesn't even support the current version of Fedora Core. If you want support for multiple years, buy one of the flavors of Red Hat Enterprise.

Are you going to complain next that Microsoft isn't supporting Vista's beta 2 anymore? It's pretty much the same thing.

Re:Justification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418118)

MS pays its programmers to write their software. I think that qualifies as a pretty big difference, don't you?

Re:Justification? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418216)

Red Hat has paid programmers, too. But there comes a point when it's time to move to newer versions.

Re:Justification? (0, Redundant)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418266)

Beta != released software.

Re:Justification? (1)

heson (915298) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418640)

Fedora == RHEL Beta

Re:Justification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418774)

>Are you going to complain next that Microsoft isn't supporting Vista's beta 2 anymore? It's pretty much the same thing.

Obviously you don't remember the pissing and moaning here about the end of support for Windows 98 and 2000. Lots of /.ers expect everything to be supported forever for free.

Re:Justification? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419090)

Obviously you don't remember the pissing and moaning here about the end of support for Windows 98 and 2000. Lots of /.ers expect everything to be supported forever for free.
I still lament the day that support for DOS 6.22 was discontinued.

Re:Justification? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418190)

No kidding.

Slashdot was the first place I started seeing the mantra "use older distros for older machines" to combat Linux code bloat. So I put it to the test.

An old system (450 MHz K6-3+ saddled with VESA fbdev) under RedHat 6.2, all of its security updates, and a few hand-compiled programs (older ffmpeg, xine-lib with gcc 2.95) can play MPEG4 movies at 512x4xx resolution at about 75% CPU utilization.

The same system, overclocked to 550 MHz and running Gentoo Linux----which I'd expect to perform well with the latest compilers and lean compilation---cannot even play the same file without skipping frames. Evidence that maybe Linux software gets twice slower in 6 years.

Fortunately I have the base install CDs for RedHat 6.2. But the lesson is clear. If old distros disappear they are basically forcing you to throw away old hardware, which is no different from Microsoft. Does it _really_ cost anything more to host old distros and patches, even if they are not actively supported?

Re:Justification? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418252)

Slashdot was the first place I started seeing the mantra "use older distros for older machines" to combat Linux code bloat. So I put it to the test.


The blind leading the blind---both shall fall into the pit.

Re:Justification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418338)

Try one of the mini distros like damn small and similar. They work pretty good on older machines, given enough RAM that is, say 128 for those 50 megger distros. I have found RAM is a lot more important than CPU speed. Heck, I was running FC4 on an old PP200 until a year ago when the machine fried, all I did was boost the RAM enough, 226 megs in that case. I went right from RH7 right to FC 4 on that same machine. My backup machine now is a 333 mghz (cob job odd parts machine) with 256 megs RAM, runs mepis just fine, although I haven't tried the new one yet, waiting until it gets out of Beta.

As to the older distros going away, I imagine there are any number of millions of copies of this or that out there still. If someone really needs old versions I bet they can find them.

As to Fedora now, I can see their point, but I *wish* they did a single Cd base install and only did one release per year. I think that would take pressure off the devs and allow for more thorough testing, etc.

Re:Justification? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418526)

333 mghz
333 milligramhectozepto? You're not making any sense.

Re:Justification? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418516)

My home gateway is an old Pentium 133, with a modest 96Mb of RAM. It runs Debian Sarge fairly well, not a bit slower than the distro that it used to run, Red Hat 9. These two distros have a few years between them, so I must say that Linux doesn't get slower over time, stuff like GNOME and KDE might though...

Re:Justification? (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419334)

Part of the problem is that kernel developers need to use larger data structures to handle 64bit computing, larger file systems, and various other requests from the community. In order to fully support new hardware, more memory needs to be used and thus older systems run slowly. You must also consider the complexity of offering several performance hacks for each type of cpu generation. After awhile, just including a basic C function is much easier for older hardware since it gets harder to test over time.

Graphical applications for X11 tend to get much larger and resource intensive as time passes. Developers think they need to add more eye candy than apple or microsoft to get people to use Linux or BSD. Eye candy is not what most of us want.

I noticed that someone mentioned gentoo. I noticed during a project last april that a vanilla 2.6 kernel seemed faster than an gentoo patched kernel on two systems I was testing. Granted I custom compiled the kernel so arguably it should be faster. It could also mean some people are having different experiences based on how much they customized the kernel or possibly how much work went into kernel patches by each distro.

On topic, this shutdown might be a problem for the BSD projects which use fedora core userlands for their linux emulation. FreeBSD had a SoC project to gain Linux 2.6 compatibility with linuxolator so that they could track newer fedora core versions. It might not be an issue for them post RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE. Other projects might have more trouble tracking newer versions which in turn decreases security over time. I don't see an immediate solution for MidnightBSD.

Re:Justification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418556)

Yup - the latest FC distros really grind on my old 333 Celeron with 512MB RAM.

Older RH and Suse distros ran fine and were impressive when compared to Win98 that the machine came with. But then I wouldn't really expect XP to run on the same machine, so I guess I really should just upgrade the hardware (getting a new version of Windows for 'free').

That said, even command line things in FC6 like yum take an age to run, which I didn't find with the old up2date in RH 7.x. I think the problem is that things are now written in Python or other scripting languages whose overhead is really noticeable on old hardware.

One one hand I wish that these things were written in C or compiled to native, but then on the other the portability and speed of development probably benefit me through reliability. Maybe something like psycho (http://psyco.sourceforge.net/) could bridge the gap?

But yes - I agree that it does seem like old hardware is for the bin, even under Linux. Surely this only benefits MS :(

Re:Justification? (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418672)

I'm surprised you can get video playing at all on such a machine.

I have an old Compaq Deskpro 4000 as a second backup machine, CPU upgraded to 400MHz, with 256MB of RAM, and I wouldn't even bother trying to run video on it.

However, I recently managed to get Slackware 10 loaded on it, and while it's hardly spry, it's functional.

This machine used to run Red Hat 7.0 and Windows 98 (still runs Windows 98 - which will crash every few days even if NOTHING is being done on the machine except the wallpaper changer!). I couldn't install any other distro on it because I thought there was an issue with the Compaq BIOS not reporting the disk geometry correctly. However, I discovered the real issue was the later distros were trying to force DMA on the drives, which simply didn't work. By adding ide=nodma to the boot command, I was able to get Slackware to install and run. Seems to run fine, although again, not spry enough for continuous use as a primary machine. 15-second startup for things like Kword and Kspread.

Yes, Linux distros are getting bloated. Compared to Kubuntu, Slackware 10 has everything but the kitchen sink thrown in in terms of preloaded apps.

I'd say it's no big deal if FC 2 is no longer supported. Most machines that ran it okay will probably run a later version or some other recent distro which is supported. Your example of running on an old 450MHz K6 is a bit extreme. Such a machine would more likely have run a Red Hat way before Fedora.

Also, old hardware can be converted to other purposes such as a Linux firewall.

There does come a time when old hardware should be pitched. When I upgrade my current desktop to a newer machine, the current desktop will become a file server and my backup machine - and the Compaq will be stripped for parts and pitched. And good riddance.

Re:Justification? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418798)

Old RedHat's didn't disappear. They moved them off of the main FTP server and added a README file to give you the new address. Everything back to the 1.0 release is at ftp://archive.download.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux / [redhat.com] .

Try Damn Small Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17419032)

Might I recommend the small and nimble Damn Small Linux distribution? I think it is still based on the 2.4 kernel.

Re:Justification? (1)

hemanman (35302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419120)

Just run Windows 2000 Professional on that machine, it works like a charm and the preinstalled Windows Media Player 6.4 was the best version they ever made, if you provide it with some decent codecs.

I run that on an old Dell Laptop 166MHz Pentium(No MMX) with 96MB of ram, if I only use it for viewing movies, Office 2000 work, and webbrowsing using Internet Explorer 5, it is pretty damn decent.

Linux is turning into the same kind of bloatware like games from Firaxis games!!!

-H

Re:Justification? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419206)

Yes, it really does cost something. I've seen kernel developers claiming they can backport 2.4, and later 2.6, kernel drivers to their 2.0 kernels "becuause that's what they wrote their modifications in" Never mind that that their modifications are proprietary crap: they think they can backport all the drivers, features, etc. of the newer software releases, including the glibc, gcc, kernels, modutils, sysutils, elfutils, etc. back to the older Os.

Yes, if you paid them enough money, they could install an afterburner on a mule. But eventually, what's the point? The developer OS's need development support, which means rapidly evolving tools, not wasting their time on legacy software and hardware.

Re:Justification? (0, Flamebait)

deKernel (65640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418194)

You sir are a complete and utter JACK-ASS!

Red Hat was providing a distro for free, and you are complaining that they are not going to support that install for you for life. You have absolutely no reason to even make such a comment.

Re:Justification? (1)

Conor Turton (639827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418510)

Are you aware that Red Hat got lots of code from the people who worked on Fedora for free? It worked both ways.

Re:Justification? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418692)

Hahah,,,what a stupid comment....as if Redhat has its own magic projects for which it is taking the code of contributors. Dumbass.

Re:Justification? (5, Informative)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418212)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Red Hat... Fedora Legacy is not controlled or funded or anything by Red Hat. It is community driven, which is what Fedora is all about, and apparently the interest just wasn't there in Fedora Legacy. Hell, at the bottom of http://fedoralegacy.org/ [fedoralegacy.org] it even says "The Fedora Legacy Project is not a part of Red Hat, Inc."
Regards,
Steve

Re:Justification? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418238)

Linux fans will still kiss ass and apply double standards because now the war is Novell-MS vs Red Hat.

Its called reality and welcome.

Re:Justification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418280)

Legacy was a community project started to maintain old Fedora Core releases after Red Hat developers stopped working on them. Red Hat has always been completely clear about exactly how long it would work on Fedora Core, and that has not changed. Red Hat has taken no action here; Legacy was created by community volunteers and shut down by those same community volunteers due to the huge amount of work involved. That same huge amount of work is why Red Hat only does the huge amount of work for a limited time on Fedora, and charges for it for Enterprise Linux.

If you want a free OS with long-term security updates, you can always use a Red Hat Enterprise Linux rebuild such as CentOS, or if you want support you can buy Enterprise Linux itself. Or you could buy Oracle's rebuild, which is like CentOS only you get to pay for it.

Enterprise Linux is fundamentally easier to support for long periods of time, because it has fewer packages and fewer new versions (only every 2-3 years). With Fedora, there are many more packages, and since the releases are every 6-9 months, if you support them for 3 years they "pile up" so there are a half dozen versions in active support at all times. This means that one security update takes 6x as much work (or more, if a package has evolved a lot over the three years so the patch has to be rewritten for several versions). The paid full-time staff to do this in a timely fashion would be substantial, and the Legacy project discovered this.

Fedora is fast-moving, that's the purpose. Enterprise Linux is stable and has long-term support. CentOS lets people freeload on Enterprise Linux, if cost is the main factor. A fast-moving and also stable/long-term-supported OS is not a sensible thing, though; there's not a lot of demand for it, it's incredibly labor intensive, plus it's not even clear it's possible (the entire Fedora release cycle is shorter than the Enterprise Linux beta, so how could something releasing every 6-9 months be as stable as RHEL? it violates the laws of software engineering physics)

Re:Justification? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418436)

How are the Linux fans are going to justify Red Hat fucking them this way?

Linux fans are fags, they're going to enjoy it. At least that's my guess.

RHAT just said fsck you to those who do not pay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418032)

RHAT just said that if you don't pay them money you aren't important. Bet that makes all those who donated code to them for free feel just great!

Re:RHAT just said fsck you to those who do not pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418048)

Uh, they did that long ago when Fedora was created so they could "concentrate on the server market". Whatever makes business sense I guess. I have always said Red Hat users are suckers.

Ubuntu will crush Red Hat eventually anyway.

Re:RHAT just said fsck you to those who do not pay (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418124)

RHT said nothing. Fedora Legacy, "a community-supported open source project" which "is not a supported project of Red Hat, Inc." did.

Like a chess move (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418250)

Before we push any pawns or pass blame out, we should try to figure out why the other guy moved his piece where he did. Why is it being shut down?

"The current model for supporting maintenance distributions is being re-examined."

... by the way, we're closing the doors, get out.

That is a bit drastic for just re-examining something. So what is the real story?

I admit that the RHEL theory is a pretty good one. I am curious, are there any stats on how many people *don't* upgrade to new versions of Fedora right away when they come out. If the number is low, then why does this matter, since it really is a cooker type of system for Redhat?

Many don't like it, but Redhat is in business to pay the rent and put food on the table (and a BMW in the driveway and a swimming pool in the backyard if they are able). They are not in it for altruistic purposes. If you can't resolve yourself to this you are being naive and another distro is probably better for you. I used to pay every now and again for a boxed distro from either Redhat, Mandrake, or Suse (kind of like a donation for the work they do), but their customer support is so bad that I decided to just go for the free stuff since I usually fixed problems myself anyway (with free advice fro the 'net). Personally, if I could get good service, I would probably pay for a distro still... But not the inflated prices Redhat charge for what they essentially get for free.

I have been thinking of switching to Kubuntu anyway, so depending on what we find out this might just do it. (I like KDE better than Redhat's favourite Gnome anyway :-)

Re:RHAT just said fsck you to those who do not pay (1)

Mike McTernan (260224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419118)

Personally, if I had written code that were adopted as a part of a RedHat distribution (or any other), I'd be delighted that the code were being widely distributed and used.

When I've written and released GPL code in the past, I've never had any expectations as to how it will be used outside of the restrictions placed by the GPL; that's part of OSS. Maybe you don't get that, but then, you are an AC - probably never to see this reply.
   

RH pushing EL (1)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418038)

IMHO, dropping support for a system that is only 3 years old is a mistake. Everyone who hasn't upgraded to the latest versions of Fedora will loose support. Ubuntu provides 5 years of support with most of their major releases, so would it be so hard for Redhat to follow? I think that Redhat is trying to push it's Enterprise Linux a bit too strongly. I'd like to see the support window for future releases of Fedora to be extended.

Re:RH pushing EL (4, Informative)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418078)

Erm, Ubuntu supports for 18 months for most of their releases. Only one release has been designated "long term support" and that's only 5 years for servers; the desktop version is only supported for 3 years.

And, on top of that, Fedora Legacy is not Red Hat, is not affiliated with Red Hat, and is not sponsered by Red Hat. As such their actions don't reflect on Red Hat.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418466)

Even though it's only one release, it's a big deal. I'm using Ubuntu 6.06 Long Term Support in a server I recently built my company for just that reason. Having the peace of mind that there will be regular backports for 5 years on my free OS of choice was a deal breaker.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418662)

I've been running Ubuntu on my laptop for a while now (a few days ater 6.06). Seems a solid enough distribution, so far, but I'd personally hold off using it on a server until they a longer track record and a formal definition of "support".

When you're talking server platforms, Fedora was never a viable platform (despite some folks insistance on running it as such). For something Red Hat flavoured, you'd want to look at CentOS.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418702)

I'll point out the obvious - you haven't received five years of backports - yet.

Tell us again in five years when Ubuntu has kept their promise.

I'm not saying they won't - but five years is a long time in IT. Right now, you can't guarantee Ubuntu will even exist in five years. Red Hat has a track record - of that long at least.

Also, I find this notion that servers can't be touched for five years because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is reaching for the moon in terms of reliability - and strikes me as more a product of laziness than competent system administration. You're going to have worse problems than that over five years, one way or the other, so it's really an irrelevant issue. All you really want - and need - is not to have the servers crashing every six or twelve months when a new release comes out. That's what test servers are for.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418812)

You're right about it not being guaranteed, and if I have to upgrade it I will. However, the less time I have to spend upgrading servers the more time I have for stuff my bosses actually care about.

Re:RH pushing EL (2, Insightful)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419050)

Five years is hardly an unreasonable life cycle in large scale IT deployments. It's not laziness to avoid massive expenses - the upgrade itself, retooling config files (e.g. Apache 1.x to 2.x), recertifying hardware, porting or rebuilding software, running everything through a new QA cycle, etc. There's also issues of SLAs which may require customer approval for major software changes or incur penalties if critical systems need to be downed for the upgrade (and god forbid anything goes wrong).

Edge into even a medium-sized company and an upgrade may cost man-years of labor from several departments. You damn well better have a solid business case before you recommend an upgrade.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419180)


SLAs are an external matter.

As for the rest, my guess is that in most cases with any medium or large business, business needs (new services, new marketing, new regulatory, whatever) are going to force doing all that anyway, regardless of what the OS vendor actually does.

I'd like to see a survey of companies who will admit to having run the exact same server for five years (recent years, not ten years ago) with no changes.

Most of the stuff you mention is either something that shouldn't take "man years" of effort, or, in the case of porting software and QA, depends on factors outside of the OS itself and are even more likely to require changes over a five-year period in today's environments.

Finally, all of this stuff is a matter of IT management PLANNING. If your planning is decent, an OS upgrade should not be a make or break event. Waiting until the last minute and doing it when you HAVE to do it is how you get "man years" of effort involved.

Just as the best way to maintain a car is to know hoe many miles each part is certified for, then replace it BEFORE it breaks, the best way to maintain a server is scheduled upgrades - not trying to run it into the ground for five or more years.

THAT is lazy - and incompetent.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418928)

Having the peace of mind that there will be regular backports for 5 years on my free OS of choice was a deal breaker.
don't you think its a little premature to assume that? ubuntus first release was just over two years and has made one LTS release which they have been supporting for less than a year.

When dapper+8 (4 years after dapper) is released and both dapper and dapper+4 support have been provided for all that time then assuming ubuntu looks healthy it will be time to rely on ubuntus long term support policy.

finally remember the LTS policy and even the 18 month policy for normal releases only apply to stuff in main so if you use stuff from universe you either have to upgrade every 6 months or track security issues on the universe stuff yourself.

Re:RH pushing EL (0)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418550)

Bullcrap they are not sponsored by Red Hat.

Http://fedora.redhat.com

Says right on thier main page sponsored by Redhat and they are parked on RH's domain. RH says jump and they say,"How High?"

Re:RH pushing EL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418586)

Bullcrap! Fedora is. The Fedora LEGACY site/team isn't.

Re:RH pushing EL (2, Informative)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418604)

Fedora != Fedora Legacy

Re:RH pushing EL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418666)

And, on top of that, Fedora Legacy is not Red Hat, is not affiliated with Red Hat, and is not sponsered by Red Hat. As such their actions don't reflect on Red Hat.

Not entirely true. From the Fedora Legacy Project FAQ:

The Fedora Legacy Project is a community-supported open source project to extend the lifecycle of select 'maintenace mode' Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core distributions. Fedora Legacy is a formal project of the Fedora Project. Red Hat donates some services for it.

Re:RH pushing EL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418108)

Actually most of Ubuntu's releases are 1.5 years of support. Only Dapper Drake was 3 years. The exception is for servers, which are supported for 5 years.
Anyway was this Fedora Legacy really supported by the company or just by some independent programmers?

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418132)

IMHO, dropping support for a system that is only 3 years old is a mistake.

I hate to say so, but Microsoft usually does better than this. I still get security updates for Windows 2000, even though the last service pack came out in 2003. With Gentoo, packages drop out sometimes as little as 3 years after they appear, which is not good, and SuSE isn't any better. I can understand dropping full support, but security support should still be there. After all, some customers can't easily upgrade because of legacy[1] software. This is particularly true for those who for some reason need to stay at kernel 2.4 or below. There's not a lot of options for support of that anymore.

[1]: The definition of legacy is "something that works".

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:RH pushing EL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418386)

In this case it's a matter of different release schedules. Fedora releases every 6-9 months and Ubuntu is every 6. Microsoft goes for every 3-4 years. 5 years of support from MS means supporting three releases. 5 years support on a 6 month release cycle is the last 10. That's prohibitively expensive to do, particularly when a goal of the project is to produce a maintain a working system that will be freely available.

I think Ubuntu has found a nice middle ground by designating specific releases that receive long term support and doing other releases in between the long term ones.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418392)


I still get security updates for Windows 2000, even though the last service pack came out in 2003.

Right, because Microsoft has a policy to support a release for something like 8-9 years, and they're a company that's supported by software sales. Windows 2000 is also a production level OS. What was the policy on Fedora? 2 releases? How much did you pay for it? $0? Also, FC has always been understood to be a bleeding edge system that you shouldn't put any kind of production system on.

The point is if you want support for an OS for many years you should choose one that has a long term support policy. Redhat Enterprise Linux supports a release for 7 years. Ubuntu has a release that has 5 years of support. If that's what you want, choose one of those two distributions. But don't complain when a 3rd party support organization with little or no income decides to stop supporting a distribution that's never intended to have long term support.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418234)

What is up with everyone pointing fingers at Red Hat? Fedora was never supported by Red Hat. Fedora is a community driven project and the Fedora Legacy project just didn't have enough community interest. Now the Fedora community is rethinking how it can support older releases... Red Hat has nothing to do with any of it.
Regards,
Steve

However it is sponsorred by RHEL (0, Troll)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418334)

Look at the title bar of the Fedora Project web page. It says: "Sponsored by Red Hat Linux"

Follow the money, that is where the control will be found.

  • The Golden Rule: "whoever has the gold, rules."
  • The Shit Sandwich Rule: "if ya got a lot of bread [reference.com] , you don't have to eat shit."
  • etc.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418236)

Compare Fedora with the Ubuntu minor releases and RHEL (or CentOS) for the major LTS releases.

If you look at jkeatings blog is sounds more like an extension of support time for the FC releases is likely, and those requiring long time support are pointed towards RHEL/CentOS, which probably are better matches for long term needs anyway.

Personally, I'd say the existence of CentOS made the legacy project far less essential.

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418408)

Ubuntu provides 5 years of support


That's a popular myth, but Ubuntu has not existed for 5 years. A more correct statement would be "Ubuntu states an intention to provide 5 years of support". That's not the same thing as a real support contract from a company that you're sure will still be around in 5 years time. Anybody could state an intention to provide N years of support, but that doesn't mean that you'll actually get it. (Redhat - not Fedora - have been providing such long-term support contracts to certain corporate customers, although I'm not sure what their longest duration one is. They just don't provide them to everybody who happens to buy an RHEL license)

Re:RH pushing EL (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418468)

I've been a faithful RedHat/Fedora Core user for years, but obsolescence happens too fast for anything but test or playground machines these days, where you don't mind a complete reinstall every now and then.
Since I don't need RedHat's support, my servers now run CentOS [centos.org] , and everyhingthing else is on Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] .

Debian supremacy!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418042)

This is just another little step to Debian supremacy!!! Go GNU/Linux Debian!!! The Universal Operative System!!!

Pulling a Nelson. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418052)

""In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project [CC] [MD] [GC] is in the process of shutting down. The current model for supporting maintenance distributions is being re-examined. In the meantime, we are unable to extend support to older Fedora Core releases as we had planned. As of now, Fedora Core 4 and earlier distributions are no longer being maintained. Discussions... on the #Fedora-Legacy channel have brought to light the fact that certain Fedora Legacy properties (servers) may be going away soon, such as the repository at http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ [fedoralegacy.org] and the build server.""

So what does Microsoft have to say?

End of the Linux bubble (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418054)

Did Paul Murphy say that OpenSolaris will wipe the floor with Linux by the end of 2007 or 2006?

In any case, with Novell out of action and Red Hat in the throes of death, I am thinking that the Linux dreamland of never paying for anything is finally crashing.

I am just waiting for Linus to cancel the 2.8 release.

Re:End of the Linux bubble (1)

RobGarth (75504) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418136)

huh? Novell are copping some flack, but they just posted a profit, and Redhat has never been more profitable. Again, I say huh?

Re:End of the Linux bubble (1)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418154)

"I am just waiting for Linus to cancel the 2.8 release."

Linus would have to announce a 2.8 release before he could cancel it.

So upgrade to the latest and greatest (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418060)

So this is more reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest

http://otherthingsnow.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

To be expected... (5, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418098)

Fedora's whole mission is pretty much implement the cutting edge and let people experiment and play with it. The target audience was inteded to be those desktop users/enthusiasts who would jump on the current release anyway, since it is free. If any business saw a distribution like Fedora and thought it a good idea to base their infrastructure on a Fedora Core release, they are now getting basically what they asked for.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, it's more an acceptance of what people should have perceived all along, Fedora isn't trying to be that kind of distribution. If you want that kind, go to a commercial vendor (RHAT, Novell) or go with something like CentOS or Debian, which have clear missions/policies that align with that sort of usage. Could consider Ubuntu, but I wouldn't be that confident in Canonical yet, but the LTS is at least a stated mission and Canonical has a vested business interest in being considered a serious business worthy option, while Fedora obviously hs no such vested interest. Similarly, I wouldn't use Gentoo or OpenSuSE in those contexts either, their missions are valid, but not in line with common business desires/needs. Debian and CentOS do, and generally end up 'boring' in the eyes of enthusiasts, and Fedora Core, Gentoo, Ubuntu's 6 month releases, etc all are generally more interesting to the enthusiast, but can't provide legacy support and the cutting edge all the time.

Also new hardware (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418296)

Fedora's whole mission is pretty much implement the cutting edge and let people experiment and play with it. The target audience was inteded to be those desktop users/enthusiasts who would jump on the current release anyway, since it is free. If any business saw a distribution like Fedora and thought it a good idea to base their infrastructure on a Fedora Core release, they are now getting basically what they asked for.

That's pretty harsh considering that they 'knew' Fedora Legacy was out-there.

Most of my clients running Fedora Core releases are doing it because either: a) they needed a newer version of some app than was in a CentOS Release, or b) they have new hardware, the chipsets of which are often only supported in recent kernels which pretty much rules out CentOS. I have one right now with disk controller problems under 2.6.18 with a dualie athlon server we got from NewEgg in August (and wasn't new then, either) that has an nVidia SATA controller - there's a new module in 2.6.19 which addresses it, which means FC6. There' no point in buying a RedHat support license if you're going to compile your own kernel since they won't talk to you on the phone about that machine if you do. I've tried.

Re:Also new hardware (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418764)

Here's the bottom line on your complaint: use the hardware supported by your OS or go with an OS you don't need paid support for.

It's that simple. And little different from Microsoft, IBM, Sun or anybody else in the hardware and/or OS business.

Buying stuff less than six months old and expecting an older server release to support it is not reasonable. Running Fedora Core instead of a server OS to get around this means you get to run new hardware - with no support.

Make up your mind what you want to do. The solution is learn to support your own server OS without paid support. There are plenty of companies doing that. If you're a Linux consultant, this is money in the bank for you.

This is an IT management issue, not a Linux issue (except to the degree that the old problem of lack of hardware vendor supported drivers is raised - which is an issue you have to deal with as a Linux sys admin in every case.)

Microsoft must feel vindicted (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418128)

Call me a troll if you may but, Microsoft must be laughing on hearing such news. You see, there were [Linux] zealots here saying Microsoft should release versions of Windows it does not support to the "community." This "community" could do a better job supporting these operating systems.

My question though is whether what is happening to this Fedora Legacy would not happen to released Windows versions. I have my doubts.

Re:Microsoft must feel vindicted (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418172)

Since Fedora is free there is little reason to still use old releases. Upgrading is free. Windows, not so much. I am running Fedora Core 6 right now and I don't see why you'd want to run an older release. Stable and the software is up to date. I wouldn't trust it on a server but that isn't what it's designed for.

Different strokes... (2, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418282)

There are community projects that do explicitly do Long Term Support, Ubuntu 6.06, CentOS are two glaring examples of making a point of it, and Debian in practice has been that sort of distro. Gentoo, Fedora, et. al are catering to a different, more aggressive sort of mission that somewhat conflicts with the notion of legacy support (frequent releases produce too many overlaps in a long term model, having to maintain 4-5 different trees is not feasible. Ubuntu is doing a decent compromise (6.6 is long term, and they plan to do that once in a while, but still have frequent, shortly maintained releases to acheive the better of both worlds).

Re:Microsoft must feel vindicted (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418302)


Microsoft must be laughing on hearing such news.

I hardly think Microsoft really cares. As Bill Gates pointed out, Linux is like the multi-headed hydra. It doesn't really matter of one of the heads is cut off. Anyway, FC had never been about long term support. If you chose it expecting that you'd be able to run the same OS release for years, that's your mistake.

This "community" could do a better job supporting these operating systems.

I don't think anyone has said that there's a need to support every OS Microsoft has come out with. I kind of doubt there's many people that want to support DOS 3.0 or Windows 1.0 for instance. Windows 98 might still have a following though. Community support relies on community interest. Try to remember that all distributions of Linux aren't the same in terms of needs, just like all versions of Windows aren't the same in terms of needs.

Open-source software doesn't guarantee support for software for forever, it just makes it possible when there's enough need for it. I'll guarantee you that if there's a big need for someone to support old releases of FC (and that need outweighs people just changing to a different distribution), some people will get together and support it.

I'll give you an example. Currently I have a server running Redhat 9. It runs just great and I've no reason to upgrade to something newer. Support from Fedora Legacy has recently ended. Would I LIKE to keep the machine running on RH9? Sure... why not? But most everyone else has long since moved on. So far I haven't heard of anyone getting together to offer support for RH9, so I'll likely have to spend an afternoon upgrading to Centos 4/5.

Re:Microsoft must feel vindicted (1)

lightversusdark (922292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418328)

Vindicated.

Re:Microsoft must feel vINDICTED (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418674)

Thanks, but I like the original spelling. It is one letter way from 'indicted'. ( And on slashdot, one letter ain't bad )

Re:Microsoft must feel vindicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418548)

>Microsoft must feel vindicted

I think the word you're looking for is vindictive. :)

Re:Microsoft must feel vindicted (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418786)


That's why vindicted is better - Microsoft is "vindictive" because they were "indicted"...:-)

Wonder if there's a word for "chair throwing"...

We could throw in "vituperative", I suppose.

This is a review? (1)

vbwilliams (968304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418162)

This is horrible...plain and simple.

Re:This is a review? (1)

vbwilliams (968304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418532)

Damn...wrong thread.

Re:This is a review? (3, Funny)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418822)


Any time you can say "this is horrible" on /. - you're in the right thread.

If you need longterm support, use CentOS (4, Informative)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418182)

From Internet News [internetnews.com]

Typically a Fedora Core release comes out every six or seven months. Red Hat's flagship offering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), by contrast, comes out every 18 to 24 months. Under the new lifecycle plan a Fedora Core release would have 13 months of support.

"Anything beyond this really seems to be corner cases that would really be better served by something like CentOS for free, RHEL for rock solid support, or Oracle for crackmonkies," Keating wrote. "What does this mean for the "Legacy" project? We feel that the resources currently and in the past that have contributed to the Legacy project could be better used within the Fedora project space."

An anonymous reader writes (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418186)

Isn't that an "anonymous writer"?

Maybe an "anonymous rwx" on the way, as he made kdawson post an article?

[I'll leave the group-rwx and sticky bit jokes to my replies.]

Re:An anonymous reader writes (0, Offtopic)

RedOregon (161027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419006)

How 'bout "what is a fed oral egacy? Sounds kinda kinky..."

CentOS (2, Insightful)

KidSock (150684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418368)

Unlike most people I don't reinstall the OS on my laptop every couple of months. Thanks to Fedora Legacy I'm happily running FC 3 and had no plans to reinstall. But now I think I'll have to look seriously at CentOS (RHEL repackaged without the copyrighted material like logos and such). RHEL (and thus CentOS) is supposed to be less "cutting edge" and more about stability over the long term. And because CentOS is just RHEL you know it's going to have more vitality than a community driven project.

Re:CentOS (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418626)

Actually, since RedHat cut support for RH9, even for those of us that JUST PAID FOR IT a few years ago, I think I finally have the final reason to FINALLY quit RH all together.

I tried to buy the box sets of RedHat, they took my money then changed their way of doing business. I tried to pay them for support, they took the money and ran away without giving the support. I installed FC knowing I would have legacy support, and now I don't. I tried to pay them about $350 a year just to download updates for a few simple servers, and they didn't want my money.

RedHat's policy is simple: "Hey, If you can't afford several hundred dollars per year per machine, then fuck you." No thanks, even MS looks good compared to the AssHats at RedHat. Debian, here we come...

Re:CentOS (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418860)

"those of us that JUST PAID FOR IT - a few years ago"

What's wrong with this statement?

I "just" paid for my cell phone four years ago - and today Cingular (who, by the way, bought AT&T FreeToGo cell service a couple years ago, so talk about changing the terms of business!) is refusing to allow any customer to put any more money on the FreeToGo account, forcing an upgrade to their own GoPhone service. The actual cell phone TECHNOLOGY used for FreeToGo is being TURNED OFF on March 31, 2007.

So I go down to the store (at the least minute admittedly, which is how I usually function) and lo and behold, they don't have any of the phones you're supposed to upgrade TO!

So I said "fuck you" to Cingular and switched to a T-Mobile contract with a new, smaller, lighter phone with more features (that I probably won't ever use, but hey.)

But I'm NOT running around saying I "just paid for" my phone...

Re:CentOS (1)

KidSock (150684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419350)

Debian, here we come...

You mean Ubuntu? If you want long term stable support I think moving to Debian is exactly the opposite of what you want. Debian has way too much religion now and they're behind on updates. I'm still running "stable" on one of my servers and I don't get some security updates for months. I'm itching to move that to CentOS too. I suspect the Debian devs all run "unstable" and basically don't care about everyone downstream. I know there are a lot of Debian fans on ./ but you have to admit Debian just isn't what it used to be. Sounds like the Debian crowd is slowly but surely moving to Ubuntu.

Re:CentOS (1)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418794)

Planning on doing the same. I'm currently running FC6 on my laptop and primary workstation but CentOS-4.4 on my server. I needed more current hardware support especially on my laptop but I'm thinking CentOS-5 should provide everything I need plus stability, automatic updates to point releases, etc.

I had originally updated from FC4 to FC6 to get the bcm43xx driver for the laptop. The only problem is the bcm43xx driver doesn't work with my AP unless I run the AP fully open (WEP authentication times out before the AP responds then bcm43xx bitches that it got an authentication response when one wasn't expected when the AP responds. S-I-G-H). So I'm still stuck running ndiswrapper for my wireless NIC. So much for more current hardware support.

Finally, CentOS has been stable as a rock on my server while I keep getting random X crashes on both the laptop and more frequently on the workstation (seems to be related to running xscreensaver on the workstation). I don't need that kind of grief.

Cheers,
Dave

Fedore Core I had better bluetooth support (1)

lcreech (1491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418370)

That's a shame. Any Fedora Distro after FC1 I have not been able to sync Evolution's address book with via bluetooth with my bluetooth phone. The bluetooth support changed in later versions of Fedora that seriously broke the bluetooth plugins for multisync. It's been over 3 years now and it still doesn't work as well as it used to.

Linux isn't Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418380)

To me this is yet another signal that Linux really isn't ready for Enterprise based computing. I mean, get real here: FC4 is hardly a year old and now its already on the deprecated list? Yes, I'm well aware that FC isn't aimed at Enterprise based computing and that I'm, in some sense, comparing apples and oranger. But bear with me here...

Enterprise based computing, to me, means that you have to be prepared. Sometimes insanely prepared because when things do go wrong you can be sure it'll be nasty. This also means that you have to keep track off the things happening around you. While a nic can do its job perfectly well, it doesn't hurt to keep an eye out for other people's experiences. When you suddenly see several threads about a certain nic starting to go haywire popping up its probably a good idea to plan a replacement sometime.. So with that in mind I'm also interested in this kind of news. While Fedora isn't aimed at Enterprise based computing, products like RHEL, SLES and CentOS are. But really: What is the big difference between them when looking at the software it provides? Different packages, different setup and you have some specific vendor packages. Sure.. Its still Apache, Postgres, , etc.

And that doesn't mean that those guys won't basicly have to perform the same things the guys in the FC legacy project did. Enterprise is all about grabbing a product and keeping it stable for a long time because customers aren't going to upgrade to new software versions just because you think they should. They want to keep their systems stable, and as long as possible. When a product does eventually reach its end of support time you'd better keep your customers well informed about it, thus allowing them to properly prepare.

This team of enthousiasts couldn't handle it. What guarantees do we have that CentOS will?

And to end the year with a little trolling: Here we have Linux enthousiasts whining about MS moving to Vista while "they don't want to" and are "being forced to use Vista". Ofcourse, even Windows 98 only ended this year, years after hardly anyone ever uses it. And a specific Linux release can't be maintained for more than a year? What am I missing here?

Re:Linux isn't Enterprise (3, Insightful)

Doppleganger (66109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418462)

As you point out several times in your post, Fedora is not aimed at enterprise usage. The maintenance work at fedoralegacy wasn't aimed towards the enterprise.

What you seem to be missing is that you're looking at a volunteer supported, non-enterprise effort that is closing down, and somehow comparing that to distributions that are aimed at the enterprise and have enterprise funding to support legacy updates. You also seem to somehow be comparing a distribution that issues a new version every few months with bleeding-edge additions with other distributions that are kept stable (and, those distributions are kept stable specifically because they are aimed at the enterprise).

You're not comparing apples to oranges "in some sense". You're comparing apples to oranges, period.

Re:Linux isn't Enterprise (4, Insightful)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418950)


Just to point something out.

Just because Fedora Legacy isn't running a patch service any more doesn't mean that those older FC distros are now useless.

The original source of many of those patches are the developers of the software supported by Legacy. Those developers - or other interested third parties - are likely still to develop patches. Those patches can probably be obtained and applied by sys admins who need them.

It just isn't going to be as easy as going to one place and downloading a set of patches, or getting them pushed to your system automatically.

Even on Windows, there are people running projects now that collect Windows patches, put them on a CD or in a bundle and provide a tool to automatically apply them, to make things easier for sys admins who don't want to or can't for some reason use Windows Update Service. I would expect this sort of thing to be done for "orphan" Linux distros to some degree, if it isn't already.

Obviously, as the Legacy project shows, depending a corporate infrastructure on such a service is not wise. But the Legacy situation doesn't mean every distro older than FC5 or FC6 is useless.

Also, even if CentOS goes belly up and there is NO source of RHEL other than Red Hat, well, that's business in the corporate world.

Try getting Windows (or Apple) for free. That's your other choice.

Finally, all this says NOTHING about "Linux for the enterprise". "Enterprises" expect to PAY for their software and their support - not get it free. One advantage Linux has is that you CAN get it for free if you want to and can handle a free OS. But that's not Linux's only advantage. And the other advantages are equally or more important than the simple cost of the OS in monetary terms - even if most CIOs can't comprehend those benefits.

One of the obvious points that you overlooked is that there are enough "second sources" for Linux that an "upgrade" (if not a "migration") is rarely forced. That is not the case in Windows. With Windows, you do what Microsoft says - that's it. That is not the case with Red Hat, SUSE, or anybody else.

The only thing we have here with the Legacy issue is some whining from people who didn't understand the distro they were getting or were using it in inappropriate circumstances.

The proper response: deal with it.

Re:Linux isn't Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17419190)

That's why 2007 is the year of Linux on the Desktop!

Ummm (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419300)

Um we are discussion a distribution here, not linux in general. While i wont debate the validity of the general statement that its not ready ( or is ) , reviewing a single *expiremental* distro and generalizing that linux is not 'enterprise ready' is sort of silly.

Legacy users ought to... (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418446)

Legacy users ought to fork the Fedora project in order to support their releases. Surely, there has to be enough talent out there to do this...oh wait, let me guess, you want other people to do the hard work for you, for free? Hrm...better try Ubuntu.

No, seriously, I don't use Fedora so I don't really care that much. But those feeling burned by this ought to unite and take over the legacy support.

Re:Legacy users ought to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418658)

The problem with this is that the legacy project wasn't really closed in any way except the complete pain of becoming a Fedora developer. It's probably quite clear by now that there's nobody who has enough time and cares enough to keep FC Legacy type distributions going. That's a real shame.

Just one more thing to nudge me back to Solaris (5, Insightful)

CapeBretonBarbarian (512565) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418490)

This is interesting. I've been slowly moving from the Unix world (Sun/Solaris) to Linux for a while. As part of that, we have been porting applications to Fedora/Red Hat. Lately though, I've been more and more impressed with Solaris 10 (and OpenSolaris). Frankly, I don't see much of an incentive anymore to run Linux on a production server. The only thing Linux seems to deliver better at the moment is x86 driver support and desktop apps. While I don't think we'll necessarily stop our efforts to create a more platform neutral set of applications, I suspect we'll be staying on Solaris for some time. Incidentally, I have no trouble receiving patch support for any of Solaris 10, 9 or 8 production servers. I like the longer support time lines that Sun offers (and much of it for free by the way).

Re:Just one more thing to nudge me back to Solaris (1)

steve_vmwx (824627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419216)

Just like to point out the limitations of Solaris.

I can see your point in the server space. Solaris does a lot of things very well. As you allude to however, Linux is stronger in the x86 driver arena.

If you're running Solaris friendly hardware then you're fine. If you have hardware that Solaris doesn't like (and I've found it *very* fussy... even with top shelf kit) then IMHO robust Linux distros are the way to go.

For some, having Solaris support dictate their hardware might be OK for the special joy the OS brings. If you're happy to limit your apps as a consequence then obviously your call too.

S

Re:Just one more thing to nudge me back to Solaris (1)

a.d.trick (894813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419260)

I've never used Solaris before so I can't compare it to Linux; however, IMHO, there are a lot of options available in the GNU/Linux world an my personal experience is that Fedora tends to be one of the worse. There are many other free distros that are much more into delivering a real product that their users can be productive with instead of the treating their users like lab rats.

If OpenSolaris works, than more power to you. Otherwise I'd suggest you try one of these out (In no particular order): Gentoo, Ubuntu, Slackware. Each of them different paradigms, so I can't make a meaningful comparison between them. If you really need Red Hat compatibility, there's always CentOS, but I really don't like a number of ways Red Hat does things.

P.S. I'm not trying to flame Red Hat. They're an awesome company and have done some awesome things with Linux. I just don't like their products.

It's not about the Fedora releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418538)

I think it's mostly the RH 9 and earlier users that are going to feel it. Like I said in my submission, I'm sure I'm not the only one who still has alot of RH 9 boxes out there. I think my decision to stick with RH 9 back then rather than Fedora 1 was good one. Fedora Legacy has done a great job of supporting the distro. It's just alot of us are going to miss them. RH 9 was (is?) really a great distro, at least suitable for non mission critical stuff back then. Obviously most of us prefer a Redhat based distro have moved on to CentOS or similar, it still really sucks that a great project like Fedora Legacy and a great disto like Redhat 9 is finally going away.

Doesn't bother me! (0)

gabrieltss (64078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418618)

I tried to do an install of Fedora Core 6 this weekend - 3 TIMES! I hate the install process it blows! It seems if you change it's "default install" setup for partioning it doesn't like partioning/formating to do the install. I also DO NOT like the software selection process - that blows as well! I had been a Red Hat user up to V6.0 when I upgraded to V6 the new Gnome stuff fucked up everything! So I switched to Suse and have been using it since V6.3, I was on V10.0 and when the Novell thing happend I decided to dump Suse and to try Fedora Core. NEVER AGAIN! It seems since V6.0 Red Hat Linux has become a major piece of CRAP! I'm not sure which distro to try next. I wish Novell had left Suse alone! It was a good distro until Novell stuck it's dick into it! They destroyed the "Good old German Engineering".

Anyone have a good suggestion for a different Distro?

I need one to be more of a development distro. I do a LOT of development with web development, Java technoligies. I use JBoss, Apache, etc..

A good server grade distro would be nice.

Thanks!

Re:Doesn't bother me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418656)

FreeBSD? Or maybe gentoo, debian/ubuntu.

Re:Doesn't bother me! (1)

iknowcss (937215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17418802)

I started out on RedHat 9.0 back in the day and installed all the newer Fedora Cores as they came out. I thought "man, this is easy. I'm Fedora 4 life!" but then it started to crap out on me, and I couldn't install it on some older boxes, so I tried out plain ole Debian. I did the net install version (a small CD iso that downloads only the packages you request from teh interwebz) and I'm still running it now. It's great. I turned a free donated computer into the (semi)-powerful web server I use for all my web development needs. Try it out. It'll only take a few minutes to download the net install version.

Re:Doesn't bother me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17418886)

Red Hat users might like CentOS [centos.org] . It is the free version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux [redhat.com] (a.k.a. RHEL).

The appeal of CentOS is that it is extremely stable, and is supported for a very long time. It is designed for users who want to track security updates and major bugs, but who don't want to "upgrade" every year.

This is becoming crazy (2, Insightful)

hdparm (575302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419108)

Every time the story with Red Hat logo is posted, number of clueless comments increases exponentially. Listen up:

Red Hat is listed corporation. As such, they have to make money to their shareholders and they seem to be doing well, so far.

Huge amount of its workforce time, expertise, money and infrastructure is contribution that RH provides to Fedora Project, free OS of high quality. Everybody is free to join and contribute in many different ways, regardless of technical ability. Although decision making process within the Project was in RH hands, this is changing drastically and Fedora is close to becoming true community effort.

Red Hat made great deal of contribution to wider FLOSS community over time by releasing code, hosting projects, open-sourcing acquired proprietary code, etc.

Fedora Core IS NOT RHEL beta. It makes sense for RH to base its enterprise product on the code tested by wide user base, familiar with RH way of doing Linux.

Fedora Legacy was never RH project. Sure, RH people work on it but that is on their own time. Interest for it vanished. It does not make sense anymore. End of story.

Red Hat is not out there to screw anybody - not you, either. That's what Microsoft and their puppets are for.

If you don't believe this, do join one of the Fedora / RH mailing lists and you'll quickly find out that Red Hat employees are the harshest critics of their own work. Plenty of smart people on those lists, you may even learn something.

RedHat 7.3 (1)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17419394)

This bums me out. I have been running server very successfully for years with RedHat 7.3.
I've received many updates from legacy. I don't want to change this machine. In fact last time I tried an update Anaconda failed :-(
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?