Why Fedora ?

[Benjamin Franz]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Timothy Murphy wrote:

> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> I disagree with this statement entirely. Fedora Core is not a
>> stable release.
>
> What exactly does that mean?
>
> In my experience, not only is Fedora stable,
> but so is every Linux distribution I have tried in recent years,
> as also are all recent versions of Windows -
> assuming that by "stable" you mean
> you do not get the "blue screen of death" or equivalent.

You mean like the recent update to Xorg that rendered many machines 
completely borken unless you are enough of a system expert to manage a 
forced boot to run level 3, locating the old Xorg packages in the yum 
cache and manually force a '--oldpackage' install with rpm from the 
command line?

Or perhaps the much too frequent updates to SELinux that have been known 
to break machines as well (leading to many people disabling SELinux to 
avoid having their systems rendered unusable randomly by system updates).

That kind of 'equivalent'?

Fedora is *NOT* stable.

You want stable, either buy RHEL or migrate to a different distribution 
like CentOS, SUSE or Ubuntu.  I *am* a reasonable expert in administering 
Linux boxes (I've been running Linux systems since the kernels had 0.9x 
versions), and Fedora still bites me hard from time to time.

-- 
Benjamin Franz

The designer of a new kind of system must participate fully in the implementation.

                                                          - Donald E. Knuth