On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:46, Randy Ramsdell wrote: > Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Okay, up front I realize that Fedora is a hobbyist release... > >but the same could be said of Debian. With that said, is there > >any plan in place for eventually having a benchmark stable Fedora > >release which would be equivalent to the Stable branch of Debian? > >I ask because it is unclear if one will be able to install a Core > >release and get access to the proper security patches without > >constantly upgrading Fedora to the point of it reverting back to > >a Test release (for the next Core of course). I know in the > >academic environment many folks are looking at Fedora as a successor > >to RedHat 9 but I am afraid it is more likely to be a Debian > >Unstable type release at best. > > Jack > > > Well rh9, 8 , etc.. are also hobbyist releases, which is funny that I > have installed those in my company for essential servers that must be > stable. But I guess my company isn't up to par with the big companies > that need the REAL Redhat for their servers. FUD in reverse? Or better > yet, the FUD cycle? > > Oh was this what you asked? > > Anyway, it would probably be better to use Debian right now. Stable has a couple of meanings. There is stable, as in "doesn't crash" and stable as in "things don't change". I think the goal of Fedora is to test new stuff, so things should be unstable in the second sense. RedHat had a policy where minor number changes had binary compatibility, and major number changes broke stuff. I don't think Fedora tries to provide continuity between releases. Anaconda does its best. For most of us, this is ok. We back up our home directories, and reinstall. For servers with a long life, you want the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" design, which you can get with their enterprise products.
