[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora vs RedHat



On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 00:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:54 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> Chris Tyler wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:41 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >>>> I would certainly find Fedora more useful if it got security fixes for a year 
> >>>> instead of six months.
> >>> Fedora gets security fixes and updates for two releases + 1 month, or
> >>> about 13 months total.
> >> But read the list of bug fixes in the updates to understand why you 
> >> really don't want to upgrade anything important until after about 6 
> >> months after a release.
> > ----
> > for S & G's, name a new release OS of any type, FLOSS or proprietary
> > that you felt comfortable jumping all over with 'anything important'
> > before it had 6 months under it's belt.
> > 
> 
> CentOS has been solid from day 1, at least for versions 3, 4, and 5.  Of 
> course by the time it gets released there has been some time for RHEL to 
> have pushed updates for anything drastically wrong, and RHEL is pretty 
> well tested before release anyway.  But, even if you hold off 6 months 
> while testing your own apps on the new OS and working out ways to take 
> advantage of any new features, you still have 6 1/2 years of update 
> support life left with RHEL/Centos.  With fedora, by the time you might 
> trust a release the update support is almost over.
----
I am NEVER the first one to install RHEL or CentOS big update releases
and always wait at least a few days while others dip their toes in the
water so to speak.

But in reality, you are undoubtedly referring to incremental releases,
i.e. RHEL/CentOS 5.2 because I'm quite sure that you aren't referring to
say the original 5.0 or the upcoming 6.0 releases.

Craig


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]