Bill Davidsen wrote:
I think with a lot of people who are not die-hard linux users or people who like to fix what they (or someone else depending) has broken don't have a good time with Fedora. I admit, with me a love hate relationship exists between me and Fedora, and a lot of what has been expressed in this thread matches both sides of this. I have found over the years that Fedora doesn't always play well with certain things, like certain flavors of hardware. I spent a year and some months troubleshooting problems with a CCTV capture card that I was having using ZoneMinder on Fedora 7/8/9. I upgraded a few times to see if it was fixed in each revision, and I didn't want to have to re-build the bttv code from source and spin a new kernel, since after all my reviewing it wasn't per-say the driver, but a combination of the driver and other portions of Fedora. When I moved the card out to a new CentOS5 box, everything worked like a dream, without anything more than building ZM from scratch. I am rather dissapointed that I couldn't figure out what was wrong, but glad to have it working.Alan Cox wrote:The average user would have no more ability to address the administration issues than to breathe water. You are an uber-admin, and I admit that just a good experienced admin can make upgrades work, but you wind up with suboptimal file layout, in some cases inappropriate file system types, etc.On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 21:13:21 -0500 Mike Chalmers <mikechalmers70 gmail com> wrote:I do not understand how Fedora expects you to upgrade or reinstall every 6 months or so. This is just not right. Should a distro keep continuing to make you install every six months, if so, I would rather use Microsoft.Feel free. I believe Microsoft solved the problem by labelling the equivalent degree of updating as "service pack" instead of release. However if you want to run the latest stuff it tends to require other latest stuff which in turn ends up updating everything a step. If you want an utterly boring older technology long life setup then you want something like Centos, which backports key fixes over the years rather than adding the latest and greatest.Given you only need to update every year (two releases) and its a case ofshoving a CD in or running the live updater/rebooting it's not a big deal. I've got boxes I managed that started as Red Hat 6 or 7 that are now Fedora 9 or 10 entirely by upgrading. Thats a bit like going Windows 98 to Windows Vista without a reinstall and it works just fine...
Outside of that the distro's still run most of my home servers, and I haven't had an issue with them at all, save for old school playing using YUM to upgrade from fedora core 4 to fedora core 5 (wasn't recommended, but I wanted to see the results of the upgrade, and I don't think I have had a broken install at all while playing with that). A feature release update is nice for the most part, save for when something like the Radius package updates, and there are changes you didn't see originally that drop, and bust the program (that was fun though, two bad lines that weren't supported and after they were fixed it worked like a charm).
I think my final note is, if you aren't needing a bleeding edge distro, use what the list has suggested already. I know it can be confusing for some, since Fedora has a lot of, and used to carry more of the RedHat branding, and when RedHat went commercial, I remember finding fedora after searching for RHL that was a greater version than 9.0.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature