Fedora vs RedHat
Craig White
craigwhite at azapple.com
Mon Nov 3 07:15:12 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> Chris Tyler wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >>>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year
> >>>> instead of six months.
> >>> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
> >>> about 13 months total.
> >> But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you
> >> really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6
> >> months after a release.
> > ----
> > for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
> > that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
> > before it had 6 months under it's belt.
> >
>
> CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5. Of
> course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to
> have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty
> well tested before release anyway. But, even if you hold off 6 months
> while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take
> advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update
> support life left with RHEL/Centos. With fedora, by the time you might
> trust a release the update support is almost over.
----
I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases
and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the
water so to speak.
But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases,
i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to
say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.
Craig
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list