On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:47 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Hmm. So, is then running a Fedora Core which is a few releases old > about the same as running CentOS? I deem not, but am willing to be > corrected. I'd also think not. RHEL4 branched off from FC during FC3test IIRC, but has undergone a lot more QC. Older FC releases tend to be more stable but may not have the latest security updates. > I run FC2, with some updates from the Fedora Legacy project. I find > it stable on my hardware. I thought about "upgrading" to FC4, but > have watched the fallout here, and decided to wait a while. FC3 is > still a viable "upgrade", I guess. FC4 is problematic for many people, including me. FC3 seems to have stabilized pretty well but is not far from EOL now. I'd be a bit leery of FC2 if keeping up with security updates is important to you, but whatever works for you. If it ain't broke... > Would CentOS be a better deal for one doing contract work at home, > and concerned about possible data loss? Getting OT for this list; however, I'm a long-time and current RH/Fedora user/tester, but my critical machines both at home and work are now running CentOS4. The ride is a lot less bumpy. I highly recommend it for stability, and the updates have been very timely compared to other RHEL-rebuilds I've played with. "Real" RHEL4 is great if you can afford it and want/need the service and warm-fuzzy that goes with it. Fedora is still more "interesting" as far as new features and more current hardware support, but the price is less stability. I'd say CentOS (or possibly WBEL/Tao/Scientific Linux/...) is worth a look, particularly if your livelihood depends on your computer. Phil
