End of life for FC12?
Patrick Bartek
bartek047 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 10 04:26:32 UTC 2010
--- On Tue, 11/9/10, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:35:33 -0800
> (PST)
> Patrick Bartek <bartek047 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Just because it's EOL doesn't mean it stops working on
> that date,
> > too. ;-)
>
> Sure.
The way people talk about EOL, you'd think that it did. Stop working, that is.
> > Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've
> only upgraded
> > with every third release--6-9-12. I think it
> wasteful of time and
> > energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost
> the 6 month release
> > cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway.
> Then chuck it all
> > and start anew with a new set of problems? No
> thanks.
>
> Note however that when a release goes end of life you no
> longer get ANY
> updates from Fedora (including security updates). This
> makes your
> machine more and more vulnerable over time. Also, you may
> be told in
> various support forums to upgrade if you run into issues.
I'm not running a server with the need for up-to-date security, but a personal desktop that has more that sufficient security. After 10 years of using various versions of Linux, I've yet to be infected or hacked. So, I must be doing something right. I ran FC6 for almost a year past EOL before finally upgrading to 9. Never had any problems.
> > I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's
> fast release
> > cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my
> personal systems to last
> > about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as
> needed. I'd
> > like the OS last that long, too. My current
> system is only 4 years
> > old and has already had 3 versions of Fedora on it.
>
> Take a look at RHEL or CentOS then.
I have (See following quoted paragraph). I'm waiting for the Final release.
> > I've looked at the beta of RHEL 6, which seems to be
> based on F12/13,
> > and it's "current" enough for my needs. (5 along
> with CentOS and
> > Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly
> based on FC6.)
> > So, when the new RHEL is release, about a month later,
> I'll take a
> > look at CentOS 6, and go from there.
>
> Note that if you installed rhel5 when it came out it would
> be about 3.5
> years old. You say above you want 5-7 years, so toward the
> end of that
> cycle it's going to be old software. ;)
That's okay. The hardware's going to be old, too. I would just like an OS I can install when I build a system, and not have to install another until I build another system. Simple. Efficient. Cost effective.
FWIW, I considered Rolling Releases, but that comes with its own set of problems. Mainly, hardware incompatibilities after a time.
> > Of course, there's always Debian 6.0. ;-) It's
> in Beta now. Stable
> > should be out Februaryish. Or March. Or
> April. With Debian, you
> > can never tell.
>
> Use what you like. ;)
I always do, regardless of consensus.
B
More information about the users
mailing list