IS FC3 stable?

Alexander Dalloz ad+lists at
Mon Jan 10 21:44:43 UTC 2005

Am Mo, den 10.01.2005 schrieb Pete um 22:12:

> I've noticed a couple things about FC3 that aren't Stable or quite 
> working. 

Single not properly working as expected applications are normal. That's
the reason why exists. This does not indicate that
the whole release is not stable.

>     1. several of the server settings frontends aren't working very 
> well, ie. the httpd and named front-ends.

Never used any of them. The non-functioning is bugzilla reported?

>     2. if you're looking to use the system as a mailer _Server_, you'll 
> have some fun configuring sendmail and cyrus.  In fact a front-end to 
> cyrus / sendmail / saslauth would be wonderful.

Nothing is broken there. You just have to minimal configure Sendmail -
Cyrus-IMAPd interaction. Trivial even if you want to run a mail server,
as you should know about the details. All far from being unstable.

>    3. multiple LUN or master/slave on sbp2 drives is still broken.

And that makes the full Core release non stable? Whoever is about to use
Fedora should read

and then to know that will use a system at top of Linux development. If
you prefer something like "Debian stable" (including the age of software
as consequence of some definition of stability) then Fedora Core is
certainly the wrong system. On the other hand, if you have most modern
hardware, you won't come far by using such very conservative Linux.

> Pete


Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | new address - new key: 0xB366A773
legal statement:
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon kernel 2.6.9-1.6_FC2smp 
Serendipity 22:36:28 up 19 days, 20 users, load average: 0.48, 0.48,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : 

More information about the users mailing list