On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 02:18 +1030, Tim wrote: > > FC-5 is nearing EOL now (January ?), perhaps you should start testing > > FC-6 > > Looking at the mailing list, FC6 seems far from ready. My own > experimenting with FC4 showed that it wasn't until about half way > through its life that it became good. Observing a friend using FC5 for > some time before I started using it indicated to me that more time was > needed before FC5 became a sensible idea, and FC5 is still in a > shambles. > > I run several boxes, here. The server still runs FC4, because my > experimenting with using FC5 on another box shows that it's not > practical to change over. If it's not practical to move to FC5, even > after all this time, I seriously doubt that FC6 is going to be an > improvement this close to its initial release. > > The time between release is too short. The main bugs just get ironed > out before the end-of-life, then the baby gets thrown out with the > bathwater with the next release. It's radically different, the mistakes > that were made have not been learnt. Fedora keeps re-inventing the > wheel. ---- It wouldn't appear that Fedora is the distro you want (from the above description). Myself, I use CentOS 4 (RHEL clone) for my home server. Stable, older, tested versions with a long support/release cycle. I use Fedora on my desktop system(s) where I want the later versions of things such as OOo. As for your impressions about whether FC-5 or FC-6 is ready, I am quite certain that both are ready, reasonably stable and reasonably bug free but it's your system(s). Your assertion that FC-5 is still in shambles will undoubtedly come as a great surprise to those who use it day in and day out. I happen to use FC-5 daily and am quite satisfied with its stability...and thus, simply don't agree. Craig
