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
