> The _only_ reason I will admit for its use as a server is for software > development, where one is developing client or server against it, > targetting a future release of RHEL. Then, I would use it as needed for > that development, but not for other purposes. > > Then I might run Fedora and Rawhide, both, for development, and test > against both. > > Just read this list and see how often Fedora blows up. I think we should at this point try 'statistics for beginners'. You have a list consisting of people who are heavily involved and people who join because they have problems combined with a tendancy for those having problems to be the ones who post (why email 'my server is working today' to the list). Products such as RHEL are designed with a goal of avoiding regressions, so what works continues to work and for many uses that is far more preferable. To understand Fedora reliability you need to work out what to measure. The end result of that is that while RHEL might be far less likely to regress something that works well than Fedora, it is also far less likely to cure something than Fedora. I know a lot of people who run Fedora reliably on servers, including some I'd have expected to be running enterprise products. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
