Easily explained by the very nature of Fedora being a bleeding edge distribution.
A bleeding edge distribution that still relies on LVM…
That would be correct. However, that doesn’t necessitate the reliance on LVM alone, nor does it negate Fedora from being bleeding edge by it’s very nature as stated before. What is or is not relied upon singularly is not the nature that defines bleeding edge. Especially for Fedora.
As a matter of fact, in case you’re unawares, Fedora is the testing platform in the Linux Community for RHEL. Hence, bleeding edge by design from the very Developers who work on both sides of the project.
I’m pointing out that Fedora, despite being a bleeding-edge distribution, fails to offer any filesystems comparable to BTRFS or ZFS.
I know it’s deprecated.
I thought you were referring to a specific replacement that they had announced.
1 Like
Sorry is called Stratis ! And yes it is a replacement.
1 Like
Exactly what I was looking for, thank you!
I thought that the draw of RHEL was specifically that it wasn’t bleeding edge? “Enterprise software is tried and true software, not bleeding edge,” was the excuse I was always given when I asked why RHEL is still on kernel 3.10.
Fedora is RHEL’s dog food. RHEL is stable.
1 Like
I was aware of what you were pointing out whilst directly commenting upon the original context of you previous comment, “A bleeding edge distribution that still relies on LVM…” Which made mention of LVM in the context in the manner I replied in. Not an overly problematic matter now that you clarified your response mate.
1 Like
Correct. RHEL is not bleeding edge. However, Fedora (which is Community developed, including RHEL Employees contributing to that same development) provides the single largest repository for extra software for RHEL. Fedora also originally being started from RHEL, which was previously Redhat Linux before the IPO went public if I recall my details correctly from years ago(open to correction).
1 Like
Oh, oh, I get it now. We’re on the same page. For some reason I read your previous comment as RHEL being bleeding edge.
1 Like
Negative. Yet we all do so much reading within the Community with the wealth of material we have available, it’s not difficult to misunderstand the context of a comment occasionally.
I believe Fedora is technically the upstream of RHEL.
It’s funny to think of it that way, but RHEL is a Fedora distro, not the other way around.
Technically, that would be correct by all definitions of “upstream.” However, Fedora originates from what used to be Redhat Linux (now known as RHEL) following the public IPO. Fedora being the upstream sourced from RHEL as a Community focused developed unstable branch where the newest software developments could be utilized for the distribution itself (Fedora). Including as an additional repository for RHEL.
Thus, if RHEL is the originating source for Fedora, I’m not following how the reverse can be true. Unless you’re simply pointing out the additional fact that Fedora itself has become it’s own entity after X number of years where most bleeding edge packages are simply updated upstream, independently of RHEL. Regardless, RHEL remains the originating source from which those same packages, etc., are pooled from.
1 Like
Yes. I’m not meaning to contradict anything that was said. Just musing.
At some point, Fedora became upstream of RHEL… I imagine around the time RHL became RHEL, and “Red Hat Linux” simply became a category of distribution.
I noticed it for the first time on distrowatch which lists RHEL as Fedora-based. You’ll also see Fedora referred to as upstream in RHEL’s bug tracker.
It’s also interesting because it’s basically the opposite of the Debian/Ubuntu relationship.
2 Likes
No worries or problems in the least in reference to that mate. Logic would assume that with Fedora being the upstream sourced for additional packages, etc., that RHEL is indeed a spin-off of Fedora based upon that. Which can be misleading for more traditional definitions of whom sources what. Including certain backports to RHEL where applicable. I merely disagree with their assumption (Distrowatch) stating RHEL to be Fedora based when historically it is the former versus the latter. At which point I was quite prepared to contact the Chief Editor whom I speak with here and there about the discrepancy. Until realizing by one of my own comments above that technically that could be held as true on the simple merit of a majority of Fedora being a testing platform for RHEL and the source of the information validating the same.
That being stated, fair enough and well done mate.
Footnote: Traditionally, since Ubuntu is derived from Debian, I historically see Debian as the originating source of Ubuntu. That is the logic I follow generally. Hence this very long, good conversation upon the merits pertaining to RHEL/Fedora. However, times changing as they do and distributions evolving into their literal own entities; your statement regarding Fedora in the present would be more accurate. As well as your statement in regards to Debian/Ubuntu.
Lovely jubbly.
1 Like
@ oO.o: You really didn’t read all of that, did you? You just figured, “What the hell, I’ll hit the Like button and call it a day.”
You didn’t have me foolishly fooled for even a second.
@Linuxephus: I read it and we can discuss further if you’d like, but I think we’ve derailed this thread. Should we start a new one?
1 Like
Negative mate. Methinks we’re good to go on all counts. And judging by the input from Community Members at large, including the Author, I’d more confidently state that good contributions were made versus derailing of the thread.
1 Like