Why Fedora ?
John Wendel
john.wendel at metnet.navy.mil
Tue Nov 1 23:00:02 UTC 2005
Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree with this statement entirely. Fedora Core is not a
>>> stable release.
>>
>>
>> What exactly does that mean?
>>
>> In my experience, not only is Fedora stable,
>> but so is every Linux distribution I have tried in recent years,
>> as also are all recent versions of Windows -
>> assuming that by "stable" you mean
>> you do not get the "blue screen of death" or equivalent.
>
>
> You mean like the recent update to Xorg that rendered many machines
> completely borken unless you are enough of a system expert to manage a
> forced boot to run level 3, locating the old Xorg packages in the yum
> cache and manually force a '--oldpackage' install with rpm from the
> command line?
>
> Or perhaps the much too frequent updates to SELinux that have been known
> to break machines as well (leading to many people disabling SELinux to
> avoid having their systems rendered unusable randomly by system updates).
>
> That kind of 'equivalent'?
>
> Fedora is *NOT* stable.
>
> You want stable, either buy RHEL or migrate to a different distribution
> like CentOS, SUSE or Ubuntu. I *am* a reasonable expert in
> administering Linux boxes (I've been running Linux systems since the
> kernels had 0.9x versions), and Fedora still bites me hard from time to
> time.
>
I have a perfectly stable FC3 installation. I always boot into run
level 3, though I do use X. I don't apply updates until the shouting
dies down on this list. And I don't use SELinux (I'm on a corporate
network behind multiple firewalls). In fact, these boxes are much more
stable than our RHEL3 cluster which suffers from bad third party software.
But in general, I agree with your comments about Fedora.
John
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list