We chose SL for the same reasons.
In general I get the feeling we are getting in a catch-22 situation. SL
delivers us stability and easier maintenance, but at the price of
increased instability or even a lack of support on newer hardware
because of the older kernels and the delay in backporting of newer
kernel features. I have no idea what the answer is, but I do have the
idea the problem is increasing.
For now, we just try to get our customers to stay away from the latest
and greatest hardware.
(As an aside: it turned out Fedora core 8 also didn't work on this
particular model).
Roelof van der Kleij
IT dept. Gorlaeus Laboratories
Chris Cooke wrote:
On 30 Jan 2008, at 23:58, John Summerfield wrote:
Roelof van der Kleij wrote:
Maybe fedora is the way to go for desktops?
It might be. Fedora has newer technology; if you're developing
software to deploy to next RHEL, that makes sense.
OTOH it's higher maintenance. It will fail more often - new
technology has its risks, you need to upgrade more often to remain on
supported releases and your users will spend more time learning their
new desktops.
Yes, we're moving in the other direction because of the need to
upgrade Fedora so often. By the time we've ported our system
configuration software to a newer Fedora release and upgraded a
thousand plus machines to it, a Fedora release has a lot less than a
year left before it's out of maintenance. This puts us in some
difficulty as we only have time for an annual OS upgrade. We've used
Fedora for several years but we're now moving to Scientific Linux to
get the extra support period.
-- Chris.
Computing Officer, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
