Fedora This forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
|
02-23-2009, 03:05 PM
|
#1
|
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Debian based
Posts: 1,250
Rep:
|
Why is Fedora considered unstable?
I understand that Fedora is a bleeding edge distro. But I've been running it since since its "Core" days, and have rarely had any real problems that couldn't be resolved with a little research. In all honesty, I've not seen any more problems on Fedora than I've seen on any other distro. I've found that as long as I wait a couple months after a release to install, updates will fix most problems and my systems will run smoothly.
What do y'all think?
|
|
|
02-23-2009, 04:25 PM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: France
Distribution: approximately NixOS (http://nixos.org)
Posts: 1,900
Rep:
|
Because "stable" is when you can install something on your server, set up automated unattended updates each 12 hours and it will work and the most of the manual maintenance will be choosing a moment to reboot after kernel updates. Here you have to wait a couple of months and check what is the current state of a new release; but you also get new versions much sooner.
Actually, what I described is some utopia, but stable server-oriented distributions try to make it true.
|
|
|
02-23-2009, 04:36 PM
|
#3
|
LQ Veteran
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,836
|
Fedora is a testing ground for RedHat. They implement new solutions in Fedora, if they prove to work, they may be applied in RHEL. You've got the latest packages for the price of stability. Having said that, it's a good distro for a home desktop use.
|
|
|
02-23-2009, 09:28 PM
|
#4
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,363
Rep:
|
Fedora only supports any one version for 13 months, after that there are no updates of any sort. Many of us (especially for servers) want to be able to set a machine up and just let it run (for years). On the server side there are very few real advances that occur over the support life of any one version of Fedora, the tech is pretty much mature. Even on my desktop if FC5 still had security updates, I would still be running it. There have been very few non security advances between FC5 and F10 that would go on my "must have" list. Most of the advances are more to do with flash and very few have much dash.
|
|
|
02-24-2009, 01:21 AM
|
#5
|
Member
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 100
Rep:
|
The default Fedora 10 installation has proved to be very unstable for many users, with it's mixed up GUI network tool and yum problems. It had to be updated right away to make it work reasonably. Version 10 is the worst Fedora experience since Fedora 2 and 3, based on the first impression after a clean install.
The unstable label is also valid because of the waste amount of applications, all in a different stage of readiness. Then again, this kind of bazaar is what some people like the most, despite of the possible problems.
linux
Last edited by gergely89; 02-27-2009 at 10:57 PM.
|
|
|
02-24-2009, 03:58 AM
|
#6
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: In front of my LINUX OR MAC BOX
Distribution: Mandriva 2009 X86_64 suse 11.3 X86_64 Centos X86_64 Debian X86_64 Linux MInt 86_64 OS X
Posts: 2,369
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gergely89
The default Fedora 10 installation has proved to be very unstable for many users, with it's mixed up GUI network tool and yum problems. It had to be updated right away to make it work reasonably. Version 10 is the worst Fedora experience since Fedora 2 and 3, based on the first impression after a clean install.
The unstable label is also valid because of the waste amount of applications, all in a different stage of readiness. Then again, this kind of bazaar is what some people like the most, despite of the possible problems.
|
Well every distro I install the first I do is updating.
Why I like to have the last bugs en security fixes
As a desktop OS it works good for me .
It was one of the distro that every I use works out of the box
No hang ups nothing of that kind
It just deliver what it promise a working OS
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|