Fedora Core brevity vs server upgrades

[John Summerfied]

Marc M wrote:
> I am curious as to what some of you guys say to Debian snobs who look down 
> on Fedora/RH as being less stable. I find that a pretty esoteric argument/to 
> each their own, but how do you counter that sort of statement or attitude? 

There are various meansings atributable to "stable." An important one is 
"unchanging," and in that sense Debian beats everyone else hands-down.

Debian fixes security problems, nothing else.

Debian Stable is Woody and is some years old. Its default kernel is 
2.2.something, 2.4.18 is available as an option, KDE 2.x (I forget which 
x) etc. selinux is included but doesn't actually work and the selinux 
developers are unable to get fixes into the oficial tree.

Debian Testing (Sarge) has just been frozen - this means only fixes 
critical to getting it out the door (and little else) go in.

Debian, despite its claims to the contrary, is too inclined to release 
package updates that break previous releases. I have in mind openvpn 
which has bitten me in the past few days and shorewall; but have the 
potential to sever remote admins from the boxes they maintain.

In the sense of change, FC is too unstable for serious safe use on 
servers etc.

RHEL is another matter.






-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/