I agree with mike upgrading can be very tedious. But I do not think that installing archlinux is less tedious.
On Aug 20, 2012 9:38 PM, "mike cloaked" <mike.cloaked@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> yes, it's a shame that someone is unwilling to upgrade to F17 :-)
>
> K.
That is a pretty snotty remark and very unwarranted. F16 is a
currently supported version of Fedora until about November. If you
are the owner of a single machine then a re-install is tedious but not
too time-consuming every 6 months. If you are the admin for a dozen
machines or more then re-installing all of them every 6 months is a
pretty tedious business - and like quite a few other people I
re-install usually annually on the majority of Fedora machines for
that reason.
For quite a lot of other people a rolling release distribution makes
less work when maintaining a significant number of machines - and
indeed I am moving my machines progressively over to a rolling release
distribution for that reason. I now get to be more up to date than
current Fedora on those machines running the rolling release
distribution. So even if I was running F17 I would not be as up to
date as Archlinux for this particular package set.
We all have choices - and I asked a simple and perfectly valid
question - your kind of reply can lead to bad feeling on a list like
this!
--
mike c
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
