On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 14:37 -0500, Matt Morgan wrote: > So what does this mean? Basically: if you can get a Fedora Core system > to do what you want it to do, it will probably continue to do that > indefinitely, until something changes. In some circumstances your > system will run forever (my compatriot here at work has a Fedora Core > 1 machine that's been up for 400+ days, and that's a desktop he pounds > on daily). But for a web server, you're going to want to stay on top > of updates and that will take a little bit of governance and > occasional problem-solving. You can't just "set it and forget it." > > It may sound like I'm recommending against Fedora in your case, but > I'm not. I think Fedora is great. We don't run it on our servers, but > that's because we're understaffed so we favor stability over features, > and that's Debian's strength. We can turn on security updates, turn > off all other updates, and rarely worry about those servers again. But > this is a pretty high-level strategic decision and it wouldn't really > take a lot more effort to use FC3 instead. ---- not to argue with your choice of Debian but I would think that Red Hat pretty much has the same sort of model that Debian has if you consider... RHEL 3 -> Debian stable Fedora 3 -> Debian testing Rawhide/Fedora-core-4-test -> Debian unstable obviously Red Hat has released RHEL 4 the paradigm of Debian stable type category has probably now been migrated to the 2.6 kernel AND the long term stability (and I'm gathering that Debian is likewise about to move 2.6 base into stable too). and I suppose that if you want the 'free distribution' (No 'official' support models), there are always RHEL clone type distributions which have had RHEL 3 clones for some time and are poised to release RHEL 4 clones. Craig
