Les Mikesell wrote:
On 8/3/05, Stewart Williams <stewart_cw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since all FC releases are intended for test by customers (see
the website) they are all beta test releases.
I didn't mean you refer to them as stable, I mean't the Fedora project.
They usually issue 2 or 3 test releases then a release that they
consider stable, but people keep saying they are not stable enough and
are too bleeding-edge. So why do people use it on servers then?
Sorry to go off the subject of this thread, but this keep baffling me as
a newcomer to Linux.
Not everyone knows about Centos.... And until the Centos4 release the
previous version was very far behind current Fedora. Servers are
pretty easy to keep running anyway. Usually the hardware is very
mainstream so you don't have kernel/driver issues and server software
on linux has been stable and feature-complete for ages. Most of
the 'fedora problems' you see here have to do with recent or unusual
hardware or desktop/GUI programs. The only real problem with fedora
on servers is the need to switch to legacy support when the official
repository stops being updated.
The only concern that I had with upgradiing my server from FC3 to FC4
was related to the videocard troubles with the Intel 865G .
(non-critical, sandboxed). The workaround was not too tough to do, so
off I went and upgraded. I hesitated at first but chanced upgrading anyway.
At home, I have little use for filesharing via samba or web servers, but
at work, there are missions to be accomplished where a leading edged
installation is desirable. Of course, there were casualties such as
postgresql format changes and the like.
Of course other distributions that are longer standing and do not
upgrade as frequently, like RHEL derived distros is a safer bet for
servers where stability and security is the primary goal. I have not
tried an RHEL derived distro yet, but plan on in the near future.
6 month cycles is a bit shortlived for a server though.
Jim
--
Never be afraid to tell the world who you are.
-- Anonymous
