[SATLUG] Fedora 9
daniel at rugmonster.org
Fri May 16 14:25:18 CDT 2008
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM, luis <luis at luisgarza.com> wrote:
> For all the things that Redhat does, it is at the very least, active.
While Red Hat contributes to Fedora, the Fedora Project, an
independent community of open-source developers and supporters, is
responsible for the distribution. Red Hat also has employees working
on the kernel, but they certainly aren't responsible for the whole
> For me, the server is stable and works. It does not need baby sitting.
> Fedora, as a server, has always worked for me. But I do admit that I
> have had a few problems setting them up as desktop. It see to need too
> many additional downloads, like flash or a pdf reader. It does not
> support mp3s, more downloads. The Totem player needs codecs, more
> downloads. And them sometimes, it just does not work.
Fedora comes with a pdf reader. It isn't Adobe Reader because it's not
free as in freedom. That's also why Adobe Flash isn't included, nor
mp3 support, or any other non-free codec or application. You can get
those things, but you have to install them so you can take liability
for the usage agreements and restrictions tied to the non-free apps.
> As a server, I don't trust it just yet. I installed the server and I
> needed a ton of updates.
Why are the number of updates bad? I would be worried if I installed
any release of Linux in any flavor older than three months and didn't
get more than a handful of updates.
> Plus it just seemed that it does no install
> all the necessary programs for a decent web server. I needed to install
> the php hooks for mysql. You would think that lamp would be a basic or
> minimal install. You really need to know what you are doing and what
> you need to have installed.
That's why there is the LAMP option in the Ubuntu text-mode
installation. I suppose this is a matter of taste. I'm glad they have
taken the approach they have. If I'm putting together a server, I
would rather install the things I needed rather than have to remove
the things installed by default that I don't want or need. And yes,
the Ubuntu project is gearing the Server distribution toward
professionals to be used on production servers. It's targeted to
people who know what they're doing and what they need installed.
Everyone else can use the Desktop or Alternate versions.
> I must admit, it is a little bit difficult trying to remember the
> difference in the directory structure or where the store the conf files.
> But that is just knowing the differences between the different types of
Every distribution has its own way of doing things. Why would we have
so many distributions if everyone did everything the same way? The way
each distro has decided to do their configs/package
management/software library/etc is the-way-it-should-be to someone or
some group of someones. Most people find a distro that does things
they way that feels right to them and that's why they end up sticking
More information about the SATLUG