Hi All;
What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
Workstation with Standard Subscription or Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Thanks in advance...
kevin kempter wrote:
Hi All;
What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ?
Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual core laptop w 12G of memory:
Workstation with Standard Subscription or Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example, RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a test case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - If Windows isn't a virus, then it sure as hell is a carrier! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
kevin kempter wrote:
Hi All; What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ? Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual core laptop w 12G of memory: Workstation with Standard Subscription or Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example, RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
1) What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade' from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ? 2) Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without restriction ?
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
-- If Windows isn't a virus, then it sure as hell is a carrier! -
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
kevin kempter wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
kevin kempter wrote:
Hi All; What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ? Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual core laptop w 12G of memory: Workstation with Standard Subscription or Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example, RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
- What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade'
from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ?
Upgrades are always risky. They've gotten better, but they can still be problematic. No matter which way you go (upgrade or fresh install), BACK UP YOUR STUFF!
- Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without
restriction ?
As long as you're "subscribed" to the up2date channels on RHEL, you can add any component in that channel.
In some respects, CentOS is a good choice. It's built from the same source code as RHEL, but it's free and uses yum to update (like Fedora does). The primary downsides are you don't get Red Hat support and when Red Hat makes an update, there's a little delay before CentOS has it. It does get there--perhaps a week later, but it gets there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "The bogosity meter just pegged." - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
kevin kempter wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
kevin kempter wrote:
Hi All; What's the real differences between Fedora and say RHEL Desktop ? Specifically I'm considering buying one of the following for my new dual core laptop w 12G of memory: Workstation with Standard Subscription or Workstation and Multi-OS with Basic Subscription
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works well and is stable in Fedora, it eventually becomes RHEL. For example, RHEL5.x is based on Fedora 6. New Fedora versions come out just about every 6 months or so.
I suspect that RHEL6.x will be based on Fedora 10 or 11, once all the KDE/Gnome/kernel things calm down and stabilize.
If you want stability, then go with RHEL or CentOS (built from RHEL sources, but rebadged). If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...it's a test case.
Sounds Like RH workstation is for me. A few more questions.
- What's the upgrade path between RH versions (i.e. can I 'Upgrade'
from RH5 to RH6 or do I need to do a fresh install) ?
Upgrades are not a supported method is about the best I can describe it. If I had machines justifying RHEL, I would NOT upgrade, a clean install is the way to avoid having left something behind which will bite you. Upgrades of Fedora have been reported here with mixed results and some reported problems of unintended carryover.
- Can I add server components to a RH workstation install without
restriction ?
You are entitled to anything in the channel.
Rick Stevens wrote:
If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...
As a long-time Fedora user, I would have to disagree. This definitely applies to Rawhide, but not to the standard Fedora issue.
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Rick Stevens wrote:
If you can stand to lose blood and get frustrated at times, then you can go with Fedora. Just remember that there are no guarantees that your stuff will work in Fedora...
As a long-time Fedora user, I would have to disagree. This definitely applies to Rawhide, but not to the standard Fedora issue.
I agree.
I don't buy this bleeding-edge stuff. 95% of the time something doesn't work in Fedora it is because the developer has made a typo, or other simple error. it's not because he/she is trying the equivalent of brain-surgery.
I think the leading-edge paradigm is usually used as an excuse for trivial errors. These occur all the time, inevitably. But they should not be put down to anything but human oversight.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:05:28 -0700, Rick Stevens ricks@nerd.com wrote:
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
It's not a beta. It is more of a proving ground things that may be used in future Red Hat releases. You won't be able to update from Fedora to any Red Hat release without needing to do some extra work to resolve conflicts as you might expect updating from a beta version of a soon to be released product to the final product.
While isn't intented to be unstable things, get missed sometimes and updates can break things for some of the users. The breakage rate seems to be higher than what happens for Red Hat products, so in that sense there is higher risk to take into account as with running a beta version of a product.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Fedora is the "beta test, bleeding edge" test version. If it works
It's not a beta.
That would imply that adequate testing has been done before shipping.
It is more of a proving ground things that may be used in future Red Hat releases.
And that would imply that fedora users are, in fact, the real testers. Which has been my experience... Is there some published list of hardware that is tested to boot before an update is pushed out, or a set of commands that are confirmed to work across some set of hardware types?
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process, report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved, stable version that is useful for any length of time because every version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process, report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved, stable version that is useful for any length of time because every version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process, report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved, stable version that is useful for any length of time because every version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:53:29 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process, report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved, stable version that is useful for any length of time because every version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
Being able to make Fedora better is one of the reasons I use it.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them, rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to "tinker", would we have Linux?
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them, rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to "tinker", would we have Linux?
Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with major differences through their useful productive lives with considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't matter.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them, rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to "tinker", would we have Linux?
Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with major differences through their useful productive lives with considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't matter.
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable, mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover would indicate the opposite.
If you chose a distribution with a quick version turnover, and you expect "long, smooth transitions", there is something wrong with your judgment. Or are you trying to say that ALL Linux distributions should strive for stability above all else? You keep complaining that Fedora is not meeting your goals. Did you ever stop and think that maybe that is because the goals of the Fedora community are not the same as your goals? Fedora seams to be meeting a lot of people's goals. So if these are not your goals, maybe you should look elsewhere for a distribution that meats your goals, instead of beating your head ageist the wall trying to change the goals of the rest of us?
Mikkel
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson mikkel@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are you working simply to improve your computer? I thought the machines were supposed to work for us.
Some people like to explore the way machines work, and modify them, rather then just use them. If we didn't have people that like to "tinker", would we have Linux?
Tinkering or not isn't quite the point. Of course things can always be improved and a certain number of backwards-incompatible changes are going to be needed to fix earlier mistakes or bad designs. The question is more whether the tinkering is a means towards the end of better stability or usability or an end to itself. If you are working to get something usable, you want long, smooth transitions from betas with major differences through their useful productive lives with considerable overlap between versions so you can tinker with a new test copy while the old one continues to deliver value in production. If you don't really have a use for the finished product, I guess it wouldn't matter.
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora. Are you under the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable, mainstream desktop distribution? I was under the impression that is was a testbed for different ideas. Is stability listed anywhere ase one of Fedora's goals? I would think that the fast version turnover would indicate the opposite.
Just to add --nowhere I read in the Fedora docs or release notes that a particular release is to serve as a testbed for anything. It appears that simply Fedora users have come to terms that that is the case.
~af
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
And here I thought tinkering was the point of Fedora.
And perhaps the only point.
Are you under the mistaken impression that Fedora is supposed to be a stable, mainstream desktop distribution?
No, I was under the impression that it was the development towards the next RHEL release. As it has been through FC1->RHEL3, FC3->RHEL4, FC6->RHEL6 with almost no surprises, almost replicating the old X.0->X.2[->X.3] progressions. But I don't see current changes that make sense for a future EL.
If you chose a distribution with a quick version turnover, and you expect "long, smooth transitions", there is something wrong with your judgment. Or are you trying to say that ALL Linux distributions should strive for stability above all else?
No, I'm saying that to produce something usable, the development cycles should have infrequent big discrete jumps, followed by fixing all of the things that these inevitably break, and this time needs to overlap with everyone adjusting the applications they run to the changes.
You keep complaining that Fedora is not meeting your goals. Did you ever stop and think that maybe that is because the goals of the Fedora community are not the same as your goals? Fedora seams to be meeting a lot of people's goals.
Where are people using fedora? How many?
So if these are not your goals, maybe you should look elsewhere for a distribution that meats your goals, instead of beating your head ageist the wall trying to change the goals of the rest of us?
Basically I'm just wondering out loud where the next server distribution is going to come from.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Where are people using fedora? How many?
Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to come up with the number of people using Fedora?
I have it running on my personal desktop and laptop.
Mikkel
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:30:45PM -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Where are people using fedora? How many?
Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to come up with the number of people using Fedora?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics uses some fairly decent guesses, noting how these statistics may not be perfect, but they're as close as we have.
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:30:45PM -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Where are people using fedora? How many?
Well, it is just a guess, but I would think that most of the people on this list are using Fedora. (Why else be on the list?) As for how many? Who know. When you can not even get hard numbers on how many people are running some Linux distribution, how are you going to come up with the number of people using Fedora?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics uses some fairly decent guesses, noting how these statistics may not be perfect, but they're as close as we have.
May I say that these numbers probably under-report by quite a bit, or at least the number of machines is not the same as the number of downloads. Once I find a comfort level with a release I drop it on 6-8 machines, using the bits I've downloaded. Each upgrade gets pulled once, and is archived from cache to a central location from which all new installs are done (by way of DVD rather than network at times).
On the other hand, there may be a tiny percentage of people who download Fedora and either don't try it or try it and don't use it. I have heard rumors of people like that.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:53:29 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
This is a problem? I thought that was what most of us were here for.
Are you working simply to improve your computer?
Well, in my case, I use fedora to find out what nightmares will bite me in future versions of redhat. Testing on fedora helps me make sure my software will work when the next rhel release comes out. So I certainly see fedora as beta test for rhel.
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices... There's no problem except the one you continuously create with your endless pugilism
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 14:15 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices... There's no problem except the one you continuously create with your endless pugilism
---- I vaguely recall you getting angry at me for much the same thing that you are dissing Les for here...it's not that his criticism isn't valid, it's just that it gets repeated infinitely.
As a user, Les is entitled to criticize.
As a reader of the list, it can be overly burdensome to have to read through repetitive complaining.
Craig
On Fri October 31 2008 2:26:25 pm Craig White wrote:
I vaguely recall you getting angry at me for much the same thing that you are dissing Les for here...it's not that his criticism isn't valid, it's just that it gets repeated infinitely.
it was quite different, and anger would not be quite the right characterization - but I do remember poking some fun at you
As a user, Les is entitled to criticize.
yes, he is, and further, I'm entitled to criticize his criticisms - but, I've said my piece, I'm not going to say another word
As a reader of the list, it can be overly burdensome to have to read through repetitive complaining.
indeed, but, that's the nature of most lists
Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices... There's no problem except the one you continuously create with your endless pugilism
It seemed somewhat relevant to post a view that I think represents the 99.something% of computer users that don't use fedora (and my own experience) in the context of a question about a choice between fedora or something else. Sorry if it upsets the closed minority here, but I liked the way RH development worked in the old days up through RH 7.3 where there was a continuous transition toward stability within a major version.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Claude Jones wrote:
On Fri October 31 2008 1:06:10 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'.
I have no idea why I'm jumping in to this, Les, but the real problem is that you refuse to accept that some people like it this way, and that if they don't, they have other choices... There's no problem except the one you continuously create with your endless pugilism
It seemed somewhat relevant to post a view that I think represents the 99.something% of computer users that don't use fedora (and my own experience) in the context of a question about a choice between fedora or something else. Sorry if it upsets the closed minority here, but I liked the way RH development worked in the old days up through RH 7.3 where there was a continuous transition toward stability within a major version.
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months. There are times when features in CentOS are not recent enough, and the next Fedora release is not stable enough. I'm actually impressed by the fact that FC10 is "non-critical reliable" before the preview is out. I just worry that the official initial release will be close enough to the first beta+rawhide to avoid functional differences.
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 months after a release.
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 months after a release.
---- for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important' before it had 6 months under it's belt.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 months after a release.
for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important' before it had 6 months under it's belt.
CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might trust a release the update support is almost over.
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 months after a release.
for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important' before it had 6 months under it's belt.
CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might trust a release the update support is almost over.
---- I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the water so to speak.
But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases, i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year instead of six months.
Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or about 13 months total.
But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 months after a release.
for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important' before it had 6 months under it's belt.
CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might trust a release the update support is almost over.
I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the water so to speak.
But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases, i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.
Yes, I did mean the X.0 versions. Even at that point they have had more QA than anything in fedora (mostly because the bulk of it came through fedora...). There were some bugs in 5.0 but not the machine-crashing kind on any of the machines where I installed it. By contrast, even near the end of FC6's life, a kernel update would not boot on some common scsi controllers.
Les Mikesell wrote:
The real problem with this from a user's perspective is that no version of fedora ever 'matures'. That is, you can participate in the process, report bugs, etc., but you never end up with a resulting improved, stable version that is useful for any length of time because every version is quickly discarded and replaced with new betas from upstream.
I have quite a lot of sympathy with your general view. But if you want something with a long life-span why not try Centos?
Personally, I run Fedora on most of my computers because in my experience it is the most likely OS to meet my needs. I'm afraid I don't run it to test updates for the good of humanity, or of RedHat.
I don't find upgrades to new Fedora versions are particularly onerous; if I did I would certainly change to another distribution.
-
Aldo Foot -
Bill Davidsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Tyler -
Claude Jones -
Craig White -
Kevin Kempter -
Les Mikesell -
Matt Domsch -
Mikkel -
Petrus de Calguarium -
Rick Stevens -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley