> That's a remarkable upgrade feat, I managed Fedora 7 to 8 and then 10 to
> 11, but all the way from Fedora 1, respect. Just curious did you upgrade
The early ones were a bit fun but doable. ftp.linux.org.uk started with a
late Red Hat (RH9 I think) and has done the same but live updated each
tim
On 12/11/09 10:48, Simon Andrews wrote:
> Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
>>
>> Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise
>> environment?
>
> Production, certainly. We have 7 fedora servers all providing public
> facing services over a range of different functionalities. All are
>
Quoting Michael Pawlowsky :
Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise environment?
The constant upgrades are driving me nuts. We have machines at
FC8-FC9-FC10 and FC-11.
The main reason we are using FC is because one it's free (in a sense).
The next one is that it does in
Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise environment?
Production, certainly. We have 7 fedora servers all providing public
facing services over a range of different functionalities. All are
running F11.
The constant upgrades are driving me n
On 2009-11-11, at 6:45 PM, Clint Dilks wrote:
Fedora is just not a good choice in this situation, we tried running
Fedora in this way for a time but it just becomes unmanageable. One
short term suggestion I would make is that you maintain your own
copies of the repositories that you use
On 2009-11-11, at 6:33 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote:
I really don't understand something, here. First, you blast Fedora for
its high-speed upgrade treadmill. OK, fair enough--that gets on my
nerves, too, at times.
But then, near the end of your email, you complain that Red Hat/CentOS
lacks the newest
On Thursday 12 November 2009 01:29:19 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 23:31 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > For example, you cannot go from ext3 filesystem to ext4 without
> > reformatting the drive.
>
> Actually you can, so it's not a good example for the point you're making
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 23:31 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> For example, you cannot go from ext3 filesystem to ext4 without
> reformatting the drive.
Actually you can, so it's not a good example for the point you're making
(and which I agree with BTW).
poc
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-lis
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 17:35 -0500, Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
> Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise
> environment?
Yes.
> The constant upgrades are driving me nuts. We have machines at FC8-FC9-
> FC10 and FC-11.
I still have a FC4 server. It's a pain to keep updating
Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise
environment?
The constant upgrades are driving me nuts. We have machines at
FC8-FC9-FC10 and FC-11.
The main reason we are using FC is because one it's free (in a sense).
The next one is that it does in
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 22:35:14 Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
> The constant upgrades are driving me nuts. We have machines at FC8-FC9-
> FC10 and FC-11.
>
> The main reason we are using FC is because one it's free (in a sense).
> The next one is that it does include more recent versions of pack
Hi, Michael,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:35, Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
> Is FC simply a bad choice for enterprise production.
>
> I'm starting to want to try CentOS soon. Unfortunately this will mean not
> always being able to take advantage of the latest features in software and
> so on.
>
> So I
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Alan Cox wrote
> "Latest" and "Stable" are usually opposite ends of the same scale.
>
> Centos is boring - in all the good senses of the word.
That's so true, but it gets the job done. :-)
~af
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
> To make things more difficult, our servers need to be up 24/7.
>
> Is FC simply a bad choice for enterprise production.
It depends on your environment but probably - yes
>
> I'm starting to want to try CentOS soon. Unfortunately this will mean
> not always being able to take advantage of the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:35:14 -0500,
Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
>
> The main reason we are using FC is because one it's free (in a sense).
> The next one is that it does include more recent versions of
> packages that we use and are looking for the latest versions to take
> advantage of some n
On 11/12/2009 04:05 AM, Michael Pawlowsky wrote:
> Is FC simply a bad choice for enterprise production.
>
> I'm starting to want to try CentOS soon. Unfortunately this will mean
> not always being able to take advantage of the latest features in
> software and so on.
>
> So I was just wondering
Are there any other people using FC in a production enterprise
environment?
The constant upgrades are driving me nuts. We have machines at FC8-FC9-
FC10 and FC-11.
The main reason we are using FC is because one it's free (in a sense).
The next one is that it does include more recent versio
17 matches
Mail list logo
