Why Fedora ?

[Timothy Murphy]

Derek Martin wrote:

>> Then came fedora with its bag of problems. Most of the users like me
>> thought , ok, maybe in one or two release it will also reach the same
>> level of comfort as redhat 8, 9. But that never happened.
> 
> And it probably never will.  Fedora is meant to be a cutting-edge
> testbed for RH enterprise-level distributions.  This is both good and
> bad, depending on your perspective.  As others have said, if you need
> a stable desktop environment, most likely you really should be looking
> elsewhere.

I find this often made comment - that FC is "bleeding edge" - 
utterly bizarre.

It seems to me, on the contrary, that the Fedora team
is extremely cautious and only takes one tiny step at a time.

If you want "bleeding edge" try the development repositories.

In my (very long) experience,
Fedora is neither more nor less adventurous
than any other distribution,
or indeed than Redhat itself.

There are very good reasons, in my view,
for keeping up-to-date with Fedora,
as many very useful developments come on line.
(In my case, for example, the integration of bluetooth into the kernel,
and the availability of recent bluez rpms,
has greatly simplified my life.)

It is true that there are occasional problems with new versions
of old applications, but that's life.


-- 
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