Fedora Users — yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

Date Prev

Date Next

Thread Prev

Thread Next

Date Index

Thread Index

To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: yum flavors vs/ fc1, fc2, fc3...infinity

From: John McBride <jmcbride@xxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:38:45 -0700

Reply-to: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>

User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114

Just curious...what is the rationale of forcing new installs every 6 mos. as opposed to having some type of "yum flavoring" like debian...unstable, testing, stable type of thing? Then just have "fedora" and a "fresh" set of cd's (requiring less download for update than an older set).

The reason I ask is more and more people seem to be saying "fedora is the equivalent of debian unstable"...but it seems to me that fedora was portrayed as a usable desktop/server system when the project was started.

If this is not considered "reasonably stable software" and the only choice is RHEL, well, I don't like it. I think that's an awfully large gap to fill.

My personal experience is (having used at least three distros for months or years apiece) fedora seems to be pretty usable and likable. Just not sure I like the "wipe and reinstall" every six months.

I'm sure your opinion may differ...not that it takes that long to wipe and reinstall, but redoing all the NIS, samba, cvs, dhcpd, etc. every six months is probably a drag on admins.

---
John