Difference between Debian and other flavours of Linux

[Mike McCarty]

Tim wrote:
> Tim:
> 
>>>One of the dislikes I have with Fedora *is* the release schedule.
>>>There'll be a release around a certain date, ready or not, sensible or
>>>not.  A new release comes up around the time the last one has many of

That's just what Fedora is. The releases are time based, not
readiness or QA based.

>>>the bugs ironed out, yet the new release is so radically different that
>>>you can't take advantage of the information gleaned over the last one.
>>>It won't be a fixed version of the prior release, it'll be a different
>>>version.  It's case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 
> 
> Paul Howarth:
> 
>>Taking it as read that Fedora is a distribution that tries to keep up
>>with upstream releases, how long would you suggest the interval
>>between releases be? The longer you leave it, the more different it's
>>going to be.
> 
> 
> When it's ready.  When it works.  When something is a significant
> improvement over a prior release to justify a whole new OS.
> 
> There's zero value in bringing a product out on a certain date
> regardless of its operating condition, and from some points of view,
> there's *negative* value in doing so.

Depends on what you want to use it for. For me, I find that FC
release philosophy has negative value as well. I installed it
because I landed a contract, and the people paying me asked
me to install it. When my girlfriend wanted to abandon Windows XP
as a lost cause, I suggested that Linux had come a long ways from
when we tried, and dusgustedly abandoned, Red Hat 6.something.

But I specifically recommended against Fedora Core. She now runs
Debian, which seems to be fine.

> There's a significant advantage in having a long-lived OS, which allows
> programmers to build for a known goal.  Some program development is

Yes, there is. But Fedora Core is not that. Debian is. CentOS is
(to a lesser extent, IMO).

[snip]

> Remember how older, Red Hat Linux, releases used to have longer lifes,
> with sub-versions before radical changes (e.g. 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)?
> Where OS faults (supposedly) got fixed, before moving onto a new one.

You may want to investigate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as it
may suit your needs better. Or a re-spin like CentOS, whitebox,
or Scientific Linux. Or another distro like Debian (which I
recommend).

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!