Les Mikesell wrote: >>> Being on the leading edge mitigates seriously against reliability. >> >> I find the boast/warning that Fedora is "bleeding edge" slightly absurd. >> >> In my (probably limited) experience, it is neither more nor less reliable >> than other distributions. > > Then perhaps you should listen to those with more experience. I'd listen to anybody who gives some sort of evidence for their views. Bald assertions are not worth the paper they are not written on. Eg in this case it would be more useful if you actually specified some distribution which in your experience is more reliable that Fedora, rather than simply asserting (as you seem to) that you have more experience than me. >> I haven't noticed any difference between CentOS and Fedora-8, >> which I'm running on my other machines. >> In fact, I don't know which I am on (when accessing remotely) >> except by looking at the name. > > Based on past experience, you could expect the CentOS box to keep > running with nothing but occasional 'yum update's for 6 more years. True (well, true after s/6/2/), but irrelevant to the point I was making. > Even > if F8 updates don't actually break your working system (which is likely > to depend on your specific hardware) in less than a year you'll stop > getting updates and as soon as a new security issue is discovered you'll > be forced to re-install some wildly different version. Personally, I keep both CentOS and Fedora up to date. No Fedora updates have ever "broken" my system, and I have been running Fedora since it started. I've never been "forced to re-install some wildly different version". -- 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
