Fedora used to look _good_, but it's terribly unstable. I installed it on a corporate desktop once and I was hugely disappointed. It was also working really slow constantly mangling its guts. That was a nightmare. I don't see it on the mobile devices, even if it's trimmed down already.

Fedora is not built to be used on the 'corporate desktop' AFAIK, that is what Red Hat EL is for.

To understand better whether Fedora is suitable for you, ask yourself the following:

* Do you want the latest stable software, produced and maintained by a growing community of FOSS contributors?

If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes," you should consider Fedora as your operating system. We feature the latest in free and open source technologies

I am tired of hearing that. It is not stable, it is broken.

Lies all lies. I use to love Fedora. I will try version 12 lets hope it works.

I am tired of hearing that. It is not stable, it is broken.

For example I can't install F11 on an nforce motherboard PC

I wouldn't call it broken. Fedora has a large install base and that simply would not be the case if it was broken.

...

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Who_uses_Fedora.3F

I used to distro hop every few weeks, but since F11 came out, I've been absolutely impressed with the quality of product that Fedora puts out. This is hands down, the best OS I've used on my T61...

Most of the people and organizations there get paid to use Fedora.

Having said that, yes, there were regressions in F11 anaconda, we did explain that at the time of release.

Fedora is the distro that drives Linux desktop forward.

It is also the distro that pushes often questionable solutions to the throats of other distros.

The *Kit-foo are the latest example.

I am a happy Fedora user, but I remain critical for many reasons. One example of my critique focuses on too rapid release cycles and bleeding-edge solutions

How about when issues like this get fixed then Fedora community could do a "respin" so I can download something that works.

So...your subjective experience on your hardware is truth, someone else's subjective experience on their hardware isn't?

After 12 years in the RH camp, my clients and I have given up and moved on. Because it's getting worse and worse, and yet the devs feel they're doing great. And if you complain about the breakage....

However, if people think things are going to be better with Ubuntu or any other distribution then they are likely to be disappointed.

Just wait until your next upgrade. You'll see....And you can only put off the day of reckoning for 13 months from the day of release (10 months from now) because they drop your support like a hot potato 13 months from release. Talk about an upgrade treadmill!

Once we *did* finally get the breakage worked around on our machines after an upgrade... we couldn't stick with that installation very long. And so the whole nightmare would begin again.

Of course, the above assumes that one or more of the torrent of updates flooding out of the Fedora update fire hose doesn't get you first.

But we're finding that we can upgrade the distro we've moved to as frequently as desired (6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months), and do it with relative confidence.

Every six months, really. Sure, you can skip a release...

It's easier just to install a new version because there's always something that doesn't surface until a few months later.

This kind of flexibility is supposed to be one of the nicer things about OSS.

Fedora isn't all things to some people.

If fedora doesn't work for you, pick a distro that does. That's what I did.

Your first mistake was using a distro that is known for cutting edge software and that has a life span of 13months

If you want to use a Redhat flavour in a corporate environment...

...you should use RHEL or CentOS.

But where are the fedora11 respins?

I'd hope anyone you asked would recommend RHEL or CentOS for such a situation.

I certainly would (and all our Red Hat offices deploy RHEL on their corporate desktops by default, not Fedora). You're quite right that the pace of releases and the aggressiveness of the development process make Fedora mostly unsuited to that kind of deployment

Yes. It's nice to be able to give a release a year of shake down time before upgrading to it if we choose.

If Microsoft or Apple forced upgrades every 12 months like Fedora does you (yes, you, Segedunum) would be screaming about it from the hilltops. But somehow it's perfectly OK with you that Fedora does it.

What can I say? It's amusing to watch you jump through hoops, perform logical contortions, and act generally hypocritical to justify it.

You can do it in Fedora as well.

My first mistake was in putting any credence into the reports from people swearing that Fedora was production ready.

No. RHEL/CentOS are not very good for this use. Been there, done that. Remember, we're talking XDMCP servers. And RHEL/CentOS take you in the opposite extreme.

We deal with *lots* of documents from outside the company. And RHEL5/CentOS5 do not deal with that nearly as well as what we use now.

And even with the dag repo, the package availability for RHEL/CentOS is absolutely anemic. Last I looked, EPEL was looking pretty disappointing, too.

Your first mistake was in using XDMCP for any kind of remote working, unless it's for legacy reasons.

GCC is fully included in Fedora. (Including a number of cross compilers.