[SLUG] Re: Moving from Red Hat

From: Bryan J. Smith (b.j.smith@ieee.org)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 19:43:32 EST


On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 17:45, Logan Tygart wrote:
> Wild. Since I haven't touched anything Red Hat since 4.something, it
> seems truly strange to me that one can apt-get dist-upgrade RH.

Even on Debian, APT is just the "front-end" to the DPKG "back-end."
Most people don't realize that -- APT does not replace DPKG at all.

Connectiva was the first to port APT to using RPM as a "back-end."
>From there, dozens of independent RPM repositories sprung up for Red Hat
Linux.

It wasn't until the U of Hawaii Fedora Project started up in late 2002
that someone _really_ made a "good" APT for Red Hat Linux. That
included handling a _lot_ of details like kernel upgrades, boot and
library issues, etc... The second I dropped FreshRPMS.NET and switched
to Fedora.US, I experienced total APT bliss.

With the trademark issue coming to a real head (long story), the choice
became obvious for Red Hat. The Fedora Project had already built a
well-respected, community-distribution model. Red Hat smartly leveraged
their experience.

> Even though RH has this fine Debian ability, I will stick with my regular
> Debian apt-get regalia.

Debian has a far more mature and extensive set of packages in its
repositories.

In fact, the current problem with the greater Fedora is that there are
too many 3rd party repositories that try to "do their own 'thang" and be
Fedora-aligned.

If you stick with official Fedora (Core, Extras, Legacy, etc...) and
Fedora-aligned (Livna.ORG, DAG to a point, etc...), then the repository
issues go away.

> I must be getting old in Linux years.

Well, Red Hat openly prefers YUM. But I've yet to meet anyone who
disagrees that the Fedora.US (now Fedora Extras) APT implementation
isn't the best. And God knows Fedora.US maintains the best "unified"
APT/YUM repository for all-in-one Core/Extras/Updates.

I.e., if you are tapping Fedora.US, you don't have to change a thing in
your APT/YUM when Red Hat tags a distro as "Legacy"**

**NOTE: In case you haven't heard or I haven't been clear enough, there
is no such thing as "End-of-Life" (EOL) when it comes to Red Hat's
"community distros." They are tagged as "Legacy" and updates are
released until they are "suspended" by the Fedora Legacy team.

Current status of RHL/FC releases:

     Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1): Current
     Fedora Core 2 (CL4.0): Current
     ------------------------------
     Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2): Legacy
   Red Hat Linux 9 (CL3.1): Legacy (suspended soon?)
 Red Hat Linux 8.0 (CL3.0): (suspended)
     ------------------------------
 Red Hat Linux 7.3 (CL2.3): Legacy
 Red Hat Linux 7.2 (CL2.2): (suspended)
 Red Hat Linux 7.1 (CL2.1): (suspended)

If you don't notice the "recurring theme" here, if "X" is the "Current"
major version:
    Current: Last 2 "X.Y" revisions in the current "X" version
     Legacy: The final "Y" minor revision of the last 2 "X" versions
  Suspended: All other releases

Getting people to "move off" of old .0 and .1 Red Hat Linux releases was
always Red Hat's biggest complaint. Otherwise, they ended up being
"expected" to support Red Hat Linux 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 7.0, 7.1 and 7.2
simultaneously, as they were just about to release 7.3 and the new 8.0.
The new Current-Legacy-Suspend now says "either stick with the last
.2/.3 revision of older releases, or pay us for support."

In a nutshell, this Current-Legacy-Suspend approach maps _directly_ to
support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. E.g.,

- Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1
Developed alongside Red Hat Linux 7.2 (CL2.2)
Updates parity Red Hat Linux 7.3 (CL2.3), the last revision/Legacy

- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
Released alongside Red Hat Linux 9 (CL3.1)
Updates parity Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2), the last revision/Legacy

- Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Currently Beta alongside Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1)
Will receive updates as Fedora Core 4 (CL4.2) is last revision

Which makes sense, given ...

Red Hat "Community Linux" (CL) Release model:
  3 x 6 month = 18 months

Red Hat "Enterprise Linux" (EL) Release model:
  1 x 18 month = 18 months

Support duration of EL releases:
  60 month

Length of duration of CL Releases of current + 2 versions back:
  3 concurrent EL releases = 54 months
  2 current CL revisions + 2 concurrent CL "Legacy" versions = 54 months

In a nutshell, Red Hat has now shifted to a *5*YEAR* support policy for
_all_ releases. You pay for guarantees with EL. You typically get it
with CL as well, as long as you upgrade to the "last .2/.3 revision of
an older release -- up to 2 major versions back.

In a nutshell, Fedora rules. I love Red Hat. Sorry for my clear bias.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith@ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:28:29 EDT