Re: Fedora reliability

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 20:28, Preston Crawford wrote:

> > > >     a STABLE version area - for adopters and

> Can't comment on what Emmanuel is saying. Unless he's working for Red Hat
> and trying to push Enterprise and WS, I don't know if what he says has
> validity. Fedora seems really good to me. As good as, if not better than 9

People mean two different things with 'Stable' :

1) Works reliably and does not crash.  Fedora definitely deserves to be called 
this kind of stable, its more stable for me than RH9 and I would recommend it 
to anyone coming from Windows.

2) Is not undergoing rapid changes.  Fedora releases are meant to be every six 
months, I don't know what the security patch lifetime is going to be, 
probably the same six months.   Enterprise has a longer cycle, 18 month 
security patch coverage I think?  Whatever the actual numbers, the point is 
this is the 'stability' which Enterprise has that Fedora lacks.  For shops 
with many users this kind of stability can easily be worth the money RH is 

In the manner of 'free as in beer' ... I suggest 'Stable as in crashproof' and 
'Stable as in lifetime' to differentiate between the two kinds.

- -Andy
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux