"After working with FC4 for more than a year, I decided that it is not time to upgrade my distribution. FC5 has been available for more than 7 months now and I did some testing on it. But instead of installing FC5 and then upgrading to FC6, I thought it would make more sense to upgrade only once."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
jeraklo: Stating "Fedora is really experimental mostly-unstable desktop OS" is somewhat unkind - I refer you to the recent interview with Fedora Project Leader Max Spevack at /. He writes:
"We strive to produce a quality distribution of free software that is cutting-edge, pushes the envelope of new open source technology, and is also robust enough that it can be relied on for server or desktop use."
They might be failing to reach that goal (I have not tried FC6, last FC I used was FC3 which was pretty good at release time). But that is their goal.
Kevin
Member since:2006-07-26
I got your point, but still think FC team's goal can satisfy only un-aware people: mixing cutting-edge technologies and in the same time recommending it for server use is a known way to disaster.
Just being able to run server software doesn't mean the quality of system as a whole is appropriate for production use.
Again: FC is NOT for production use.
(and will never be regarding project's goal)
Member since:2005-07-06
Ignoring the obvious flame bait, Fedora is -not- experimental, it's cutting edge. Fedora-devel (Rawhide) is experimental. Fedora was never designed for production servers (RedHat has RHEL for that), but it's -well- suited for testing and software development (me and all my coworkers are using it...), office and home desktop work.
As I'm currently using RHEL (4), Slackware (10.1), Debian (unstable) and playing around with Gentoo and Ununutu, I can't really say that in my experience neither FC5 nor FC6 is less stable then either of them. (Except Slackware and RHEL - but both are different by design)
I will concede that Yum is dog slow compared to (sl)apt-get, but that's another matter altogether...
- Gilboa
Edited 2006-11-07 15:30
Member since:2006-06-24
For years people have been saying yum is slower than apt-get. My experience seems to tell the same. However, it seems there is no detailed comparison between the two. If someone with enough knowledge can do an objective investigation that will help both apt-get and yum and the distributions behind them.
Member since:
2006-07-26
Fedora is really experimental mostly-unstable desktop OS(?). It has crappy and limited package management system, it's insecure by default (just take a look at all these unneeded services lying aroud) - having SElinux switched to "ON" doesn't mean you are automagically protected from threats.
It can be somewhat usable to Desktop users because "Look it works - I have mouse pointer moving on X-Windows", but it is NOT recommended for any serious production environments.
Recommendation: if going to production - stay away from FC.