> As I said above I am sorry for the initial RANT. Thank you to all for
> your patience and help.
> I have been looking into ARCH, which someone, mentioned above, and I
> think their philosophy towards Linux is, quite good, a rolling
> release. It is harder to work with initially seeing as it does not
> have a graphical install process. It is a minimal installation, which
> I like, and you install only what you want after the minimal
> installation. It also releases the latest packages usually in 1 day or
> 2. Didn't know that there was a distro like ARCH.
> For the question above, I do like to stay up to date, and the GUI
> matters a pretty good bit to me. I love the changes that KDE made,
> with their GUI, when they went to 4 and now to 4.2!
I have to throw my 2 cents worth in. I have to agree that doing a full
upgrade every 6-8
months gets tiresome when you have a dozen or so
machines running it. However, preupgrade does seem to help that a lot
and it's getting better with oddball setups like some I have.
That said, rolling updates are the way to go. No need for continual
upgrades to 'releases' just update to the latest version of a package
and be done with it. I'm just not sure a 'major release' design is the
way to go any longer. With internet access the way it is, why not just
do rolling updates?
Personally this is why I use gentoo more and more. No need to download
an ISO or anything of the sort, just switch to a new profile, update the
needed packages and you are at the latest 'release'. Then, update
packages as they are released as stable. (or as ~arch in the gentoo world).
Nothing else makes as much sense to me in the open source world that
isn't a 'paid' or 'enterprise'
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
Sr. Systems Administrator
Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support
fedora-list mailing listfedora-list redhat com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list