Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:04 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > >> > FC5 is not a production type software, its probably meant for hobbyists >> > or someone who is experimenting with things that are not mission >> > critical. >> >> I don't agree with that. >> In my experience it is neither more nor less "stable" >> than any other Linux distribution. > > You are lucky or you haven't followed the list very long. Fedora > intentionally stays close to development and thus pushes out a > lot of code that has not previously been tested in a lot of different > environments. Whether you measure stability in terms of rate-of-change > or updates that cause crashes, fedora doesn't fare very well, but as > a tradeoff you get to try all the nifty new desktop stuff. I've actually been reading the list since it started. I've often seen this mantra that Fedora is "bleeding edge" and not to be trusted. But that is not my experience. I have used all (or virtually all) Linux distributions, and found no significant difference between them, as far as "stability" is concerned. I used to run various versions of RedHat, I think starting with 5, and again I have not found FC any different from RedHat as regards reliability. 90% of the problems I have encountered involve either X or WiFi, and don't really have anything to do with distributions. I usually compile the kernel for various reasons. (I don't think any of the supplied FC kernels have worked with my USB WiFi device.) So this again is independent of distribution. That just leaves non-X applications, and my impression is that the Fedora RPMs are nearly always well-tested and reliable. (I'm talking of those in the standard extra and update repositories.) -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
