Robert Haas wrote:
>> Where you *will* have some major OS risk is with testing-level software
>> or "bleeding edge" Linux distros like Fedora. Quite frankly, I don't
>> know why people run Fedora servers -- if it's Red Hat compatibility you
>> want, there's CentOS.
>
> I've had no stability problems with Fedora. The worst experience I've
> had with that distribution is that half the time the CD-burning
> utilities seem to be flaky. As for why that and not CentOS... I like
> having modern versions of all of my packages. 5 years is a long time
> to get nothing but bugfixes.
Fedora is not the only distro with "flaky CD-burning utilities". I'm
still hunting down issues with k3b and brasero on my openSUSE 11.1
system. "RW" media are your friends. :)
Five years may be a long time to get nothing but bugfixes, but having to
do extensive upgrade testing and an OS upgrade every six months, which
is where most "community" distros' release schedules are these days,
also seems extreme. I personally think for the money you pay for Windows
2003 Server or RHEL, you ought to be able to go a year or more between
unplanned reboots, and they really should minimize the number of reboots
you have to eat for security fixes too. Otherwise, what's the point of
spending money for an OS? :)
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P), WOM
I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.
