On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 20:18, McKeever Chris wrote: > I know this topic has come up before, especially when FEDORA was first introduced, but now after months of implementing, tweaking and > CORE2, how secure and stable is FEDORA?? I'd say Fedora *should* be as stable as other Red Hat releases. I have had no downtimes with Fedora yet apart from one older client where the X-server wouldn't start after an update with up2date. > Currently, we are running RH7.3 for almost everything from mail to DNS to samba domain control. Can Fedora be implemented in its place > and provide an environment that can be dependable? Probably. > if the answer is unfortunately NO, what other are the more highly recommended distros The answer depends. The trouble with Fedora are the short release cycles. There is a legacy project but no experience exists with that. You can't implement a mission critical environment without prior knowledge how long this platform will be supported. Using Core 1 almost from the beginning, I have to witness it already has reached an end this month due to its bigger brother, Core 2. But I'd not be willing to risk a perfectly productive Core 1 environment just because I have to upgrade to Core 2 to get patches. That's one of the reasons why most backbone machines I run still use either SuSE or Red Hat. Replacing a client installation with Core 2 is not the problem though. just my thoughts, Tobias
