On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 22:18 -0400, David Boles wrote: > A sensible person would run CentOS, or RHEL, or one of the many > others, for a server. It would be foolish to run any distro, such as > Fedora, there are many others, in a production type situation. > Something that changes as often, as quickly, and a radically as Fedora > does not, would not, be a good choice for a stable LAN or production > system. I could imagine the situation where you run a fairly simple server, one that does just one or two things (like a webserver without extensive databases), and if you were an admin that were always keeping up to date with updates, that there's not a great deal of difference between updating a collection of RPMs, to updating all of them with a new distro. But once you make a server complicated (throw in mail, databases, user file storage, etc.), rapid distro updating does become a much greater nuisance, and you will want a base system with a longer life. I can't say that I've really come across updates that made a system unstable or plain broken. And that sort of thing could just as easily happen while updating packages on another distro with a longer life than Fedora. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.25.6-55.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
