Hi folks, long-time oft-annoyed or amused lurker here.
I can't believe I'm defending Fedora here, but here goes... Leslie wrote: > Fedora is the unstable version of Red Hat. This is totally untrue. Fedora is a community supported distribution with a focus on the desktop, RHEL is a commercially-supported distro focused on the enterprise. Fedora rawhide is the unstable, pre-release branch of Fedora. Fedora 17/Fedora 18 release should be completely "stable" Fedora, from time to time, certainly does some miraculous engineering navel-gazing but it's disingenous to make a categorical statement that it is unstable. > It is too bad that CGEP starts next week, but if you have time, please > explore CentOS or Scientific Linuxs (either). The are what we call super > stable. You're clouding up here with extra adjectives; stable and unstable are the terms that matter. CentOs is a terrible suggestion for seeing what a modern desktop linux machine is capable of... > Fedora is the test bed. Fedora development tries to put out a clean product, > but when bugs are found, we use bugzilla to report them. Nonsense. So is RHEL unstable because it has a bugzilla? (What's more amusing is that RH & Fedora bugzilla are basically one and the same) > I have a Debian problem right now with my 32bit installation (2.6.32-5-686). > Apt and synaptic crashes on update attempts. So, if I cannot update, how can > I fix other problems? By crash, do you mean actually crashes, like SIGSEGV or, like, maybe, that it's just not working for some reason? If you're going to use terminology, it's best to stick with reference meanings. > Every distribution has it's followers and good points. I like Debian for > cleanness. But like your experience with LXDE, I have mine with Synaptic. Debian is a distribution. LXDE and synaptic are not. -E _______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
