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 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
