redhat 9 or fedora?
- Thread starter blueice
- Start date
They both have advantages and disadvantages:
Fedora: Current OS, still in its life, constant updates, short EOL - upgrading OS every few months.
Redhat 9: Passed its EOL, not officially supported, will last aslong as you keep it updated.
Fedora is certainly stable in its own way, and a great OS for personal systems etc, but not designed for an environment where stability and uptime are the most critical aspects - which is likely what you want it for here.
Chris
Fedora: Current OS, still in its life, constant updates, short EOL - upgrading OS every few months.
Redhat 9: Passed its EOL, not officially supported, will last aslong as you keep it updated.
Fedora is certainly stable in its own way, and a great OS for personal systems etc, but not designed for an environment where stability and uptime are the most critical aspects - which is likely what you want it for here.
Chris
neither is worth the hassle these days, if you're going dedicated then go with a provider that offers RHEL. if you plan on doing colo, pick up a copy of rhel off of ebay. another option is to try www.whiteboxlinux.org which is rhel built from the source rpm's available on redhat's ftp site. that's only if it absolutely has to be linux, if not you should try freebsd. only use one of the -STABLE releases and not the 'technology releases', that is if this is for a box that will be used for commercial purposes. the current -STABLE release is 4.9 however it's rumored that 5.3 will be available shortly.
Last edited:
I wouldn't call any of the main distros 'worthless', every OS can be better than another... it all depends on what the system is for, redhat wanted a commercial product for use in a commercial environment; and they have it, but they *had* to provide fedora for non commercial users, or risk loosing every non commercial RHL user to a competitor (likely to be an RPM based distro based on redhat... ).
I would still use 7.3 - 9 in a webhosting environment, even when 3rd party companies stop updates, or until custom upgrades start failing to work with the older OS..... Fedora.... i've had it on a test system here and as of yet (100+days) not had a glitch... uptime has been 100% besides manual reboots (for kernel and other important system changes).. even the upgrade from 9>fedora was very simple... no more than 20 minutes downtime on the client side of things... if fedora can keep that up I actually think it may be a viable option for some.
Of course we can all hope for rhel, unfortunately not everyone will have $500 per system, per year to splash out... regarding whitebox... I installed it on another test box last week.... similarity with rhel.... amazed!
Chris
I would still use 7.3 - 9 in a webhosting environment, even when 3rd party companies stop updates, or until custom upgrades start failing to work with the older OS..... Fedora.... i've had it on a test system here and as of yet (100+days) not had a glitch... uptime has been 100% besides manual reboots (for kernel and other important system changes).. even the upgrade from 9>fedora was very simple... no more than 20 minutes downtime on the client side of things... if fedora can keep that up I actually think it may be a viable option for some.
Of course we can all hope for rhel, unfortunately not everyone will have $500 per system, per year to splash out... regarding whitebox... I installed it on another test box last week.... similarity with rhel.... amazed!
Chris
ProWebUK said:
I never did call any of the main distros worthless
I did say that it isn't worth the hassle to use redhat 7.3-9 or fedora in a production environment because of the fact that fedora has new releases every ~4-6 months and that if there's a new vulnerabilty for something discovered in one of the older redhat versions and no one supports it, what then? not worth the hassle imo. for a home computer, fedora is fine, not for a server in a production environment. that's what kiddie hosts will use.varangian said:I never did call any of the main distros worthless
Redhat has plenty or 3rd party companies updating... Many more could do it also.... If they did decide to stop for any reason (Doubtful, at least for some time... its a pretty good place to be with all the people afraid of source
) then you can start updating yourself.... I use the rpms since they are there, if they weren't i'd build my own updates.The only donwisde I can really see with redhat is that its not **officially** supported, and once its past the EOL there will be less specific programs for it.
Back to Fedora, 6 months EOL.... not good in a webhosting environment although as I said the upgrade from 9>Fedora was as smooth as a kernel compile... just quicker
... no more than 20 minutes downtime... I wont be using Fedora for anything other than testing and software development, however for the ones who want it, 40 minutes downtime per year isn't too bad... of course it good be better, without it thats 40 minutes more uptime of course Chris
Quite an old thread, but for everyone who use RedHat I would recommend to switch to Fedora. EOL isn't good, and we should go away from it I've posted this message because I saw some people who really don't know what to install (RedHat is very old OS, but they choose it)..
I've posted this message because I saw some people who really don't know what to install (RedHat is very old OS, but they choose it)..
Last edited:
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
I presume you mean for everyone using version 9 or lower of Red Hat, since the newer Red Hat ES 4.x, 5.x, and CentOS versions of same are actually much better solutions than Fedora. The CentOS solutions are also free as in beer, and are supported for many more years than Fedora.
Jeff
Jeff
nobaloney
NoBaloney Internet Svcs - In Memoriam †
Semantics aside, anyone who finds your post through a search is unlikely to read anything above it. That's why I often post clarifications.
And I stand by my recommendation of CentOS over Fedora.
Jeff