Ryan Amos wrote: >This is turning into a sysadmin theory flamewar, but I think the main >point is that Fedora probably isn't the best thing to run on production >machines for QA reasons. This is because Fedora is more or less the QA >testbed for RHEL. CentOS is, for all intents and purposes (except a >little bug I discovered with large block devices >2 TB) the same as RHEL >without the support contract, so it is probably a better choice for a >server you want to keep working for a while. > >Debian stable would probably work just as well (though IMO debian tends >to be a bit TOO old,) as would SUSE's stable release version. Just don't >use a "testing" release on a production machine. "yum update" (or >up2date, or apt) is pretty safe on "stable" release trees, but in the >testing releases you can run into problems with package dependencies, >versions, slowly updated mirrors... you get the point. > > > Debian stable is not so old. No decent distro is going to do a new stable release every time a new asterisk, openoffice, firefox, etc. is released. That's why they call it stable.
There are several ways to get newer asterisk versions onto a debian stable system. The end user decides what risks to take in modifying any stable distro. Best approach for me has been to limit those changes to what I really must have. I take something like a new openoffice and try it out on a debian system running testing or unstable. If I like it enough, I find or build debian packages for the stable release. I think this sane and careful approach works with most linux distros but I have seen some distros where the testing or unstable branch was not installable at times. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
