Ooops, we made Linus leave : (choices and punishment)

[Gar]

________________________________
[...]
Now... here's the catch. If Fedora labels as final releases that incorporates unstable core backends. And Redhat, which depends on Fedora for alot of its core development releases stuff based on that, then what would lead me to believe that  Redhat Enterprise and consequently Centos which would be the distro that I would be using which is based on Redhat Enterprise is using stable stuff.


Eli

Here at work, all our configuration management servers and desktops are all RHEL, mostly 4 and moving to 5. Sideline stuff is Centos or Scientific Linux. At work, I wouldn't load a system with Fedora on a bet. However, both my home desktop, and my home laptop are the most current version of Fedora available (currently 10). I'm familiar with Redhat at work, and enjoy having Fedora at home, but I wouldn't put Fedora on any system that was critically important to me.

So what would lead you to believe that RHEL is more stable than Fedora is that RHEL is based on much older versions of Fedora. Isn't RHEL5 based on Fedora6? (not sure about that) I'm not going to use anything with a 6 month change cycle at work, but that same cycle is great for home.

I think that's the tradeoff you have to look at. Both use the same underlying file system, so lessons and techniques learned on one apply to the other (to a large degree). If you want really cool stuff, that almost certainly will still have a few rough edges, than Fedora is awesome. If you feel stability is your most important measurement criteria, then Redhat Enterprise, or one of the copies would appear to be a much better fit. 

And of course, YMMV.
Gar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/attachments/20090126/fe91d70f/attachment.html