Fedora vs RedHat

[Les Mikesell]

Craig White 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.

Yes, I did mean the X.0 versions. Even at that point they have had more 
QA than anything in fedora (mostly because the bulk of it came through 
fedora...).  There were some bugs in 5.0 but not the machine-crashing 
kind on any of the machines where I installed it.  By contrast, even 
near the end of FC6's life, a kernel update would not boot on some 
common scsi controllers.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com