Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[Timothy Murphy]

John Summerfield wrote:

> Perhaps you should read this
> document,http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives and particularly note
> this para. "To be on the leading edge of free and open source
> technology, by adopting and helping develop new features and version
> upgrades."
> 
> Being on the leading edge mitigates seriously against reliability.

I find the boast/warning that Fedora is "bleeding edge" slightly absurd.

In my (probably limited) experience, it is neither more nor less reliable
than other distributions.

The complaint in the posting that started this,
<http://www.mjmwired.net/linux/2008/02/11/fedora-makes-a-terrible-server/>,
seemed to be about some unspecified problem with ssh, under some kernel.
I don't recall anyone else mentioning this.
I certainly didn't notice any problem.

I've actually gone over to CentOS-5.1 on my tiny server,
but that is because it is running on a Dell PowerEdge T105
(which for some reason Dell is or was selling for 150 euro)
and Dell lists CentOS among its 2 or 3 "acceptable OSes".
This means you get official Dell software and hardware related updates.

I haven't noticed any difference between CentOS and Fedora-8,
which I'm running on my other machines.
In fact, I don't know which I am on (when accessing remotely)
except by looking at the name.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland