I am curious as to what some of you guys say to Debian snobs who look down on Fedora/RH as being less stable. I find that a pretty esoteric argument/to each their own, but how do you counter that sort of statement or attitude?
There are various meansings atributable to "stable." An important one is "unchanging," and in that sense Debian beats everyone else hands-down.
Debian fixes security problems, nothing else.
Debian Stable is Woody and is some years old. Its default kernel is 2.2.something, 2.4.18 is available as an option, KDE 2.x (I forget which x) etc. selinux is included but doesn't actually work and the selinux developers are unable to get fixes into the oficial tree.
Debian Testing (Sarge) has just been frozen - this means only fixes critical to getting it out the door (and little else) go in.
Debian, despite its claims to the contrary, is too inclined to release package updates that break previous releases. I have in mind openvpn which has bitten me in the past few days and shorewall; but have the potential to sever remote admins from the boxes they maintain.
In the sense of change, FC is too unstable for serious safe use on servers etc.
RHEL is another matter.
--
Cheers John
-- spambait 1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
