importance of upgradeability (was: Re: Why should one upgrade Fedora whenever a new version is released?)

[lee]

Michael Hennebry <hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> writes:

>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, lee wrote:

> In my case, I found Fedora very expensive to upgrade.

That I can understand --- upgrading twice a year, especially when
it's questionable if the upgrade works --- can be painful, all the more
when you have many machines to upgrade.  It gave me a lot to worry about
even with only one.

> If I want something that *I* cannot install on CentOS,
> I'll just have to find a distribution earlier in its release cycle.
> That might be the time to consider virtualization.

True, it can help you out when requirements change and makes
upgradeability less important.

>> Unless I missed it, nobody has described a particular use case yet in
>> which it is obvious that it is good to use CentOS.  Upgrading holds its
>> risks as well as using software that cannot be upgraded.  The future
>> cannot be predicted.  So how do you make a decision like between using
>> Fedora and CentOS?
>
> Is there a particular use case in which it
> is obvious that it is good to use RHEL?

At least I can imagine some, assuming that their commercial support is
worthwhile to have.  I wouldn't expect needing lots of new features on a
mail- or web-server.


-- 
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)