Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[max bianco]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> max bianco wrote:
> >
> >
> > am I the only person that voluntarily uses Fedora? I have only been
> > using it a short time  but i understood it was a moving target when i
> > signed on.  This thread reminds me of KL. It wasn't that long ago so i
> > am sure most of you remember to whom i am referring.
> > Fedora is what it is and some have more experience than others. Is there
> > some other lesson to take away from this thread?
>
> Fedora tries to stay very close to current software development.  That
> means you get the new features as well as the new bugs.  On a desktop or
> as a second, non-critical machine that is a reasonable tradeoff,
> especially if you use the applications where the new features matter.
> This thread is mostly about servers where downtime is to be avoided at
> (almost) any cost and you want things to keep working for years.  It
> isn't about fedora being inherently bad, it just isn't suitable for some
> uses.
>
>
I know it isn't suitable for some uses. I tried to learn what  I could
about  Fedora before I actually installed it on my machine.  It seems
however  that  some people have unrealistic expectations.   The  bleeding
edge and stable are not  words  i would expect to  fit into the  same
sentence under any circumstances. Having said that it has been very stable
for me, and by stable i mean that it has never failed to boot, have i had
issues? Sure but the basic functionality has always been there for me. Maybe
some features break from time to time but i have always been able to access
the web to solve my problems, would i use it for a server? maybe but I'd not
have much room to complain if I tried to ride the bleeding edge and fell off
the cliff because of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080325/b7996e3d/attachment-0001.htm>