[CentOS] Re: is CentOS stable enough ?
feizhou at graffiti.net
Tue Jun 12 05:09:02 UTC 2007
Tom Diehl wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
>>> FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop. It's quite stable. I wouldn't
>>> use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
>> Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
> Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means
> that if
> you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to upgrade
> machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
> IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer.
> Depends on
> how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you
Depends on the requirements.
The OS is basically a commodity item nowadays. Whatever that is stable
and performs can be dropped in especially if the software stack is small.
>> Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have seen
>> Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard input
>> would not work all of a sudden...
> Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me the
> and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle
> on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine
> once a
> year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop than
> a production server.
Whether a production server is easier to rebuild than a desktop really
depends on how you go about doing it.
More information about the CentOS