[CentOS] Re: is CentOS stable enough ?

Feizhou 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 
> the
> machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.

Automated deployment.

> 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 
> want/need.

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 
> latest
> and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade cycle 
> exists
> 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 mailing list