On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:52:39 -0700, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). No, you're leaving out the whole security.debian.org repositories. If you set your apt-get config only to use the security repositories, then you get only security-related updates. I'm pretty sure that RH has no analogous capability.
