4 ms·

Fedora's strong point is that packages are pretty new (not quite Arch). This is also its weak point. The idea that it's stable is just funny. It also doesn't ev

by pekk 9y ago

Fedora's strong point is that packages are pretty new (not quite Arch). This is also its weak point. The idea that it's stable is just funny. It also doesn't even pretend to support upgrades. If you want stable, try CentOS or Debian Stable.

rantanplan 9y ago
I use Fedora as my primary development OS in my various machines for ~8 years. Previously I was on various SuSE versions and even farther back I was on Slack. Around 2011-2013, I used on my work(office) machines Ubuntu while I continued to have Fedora on my laptop. Fedora not only did it have more recent packages, it was so much more stable than ubuntu that it was incomparable. In general I find Ubuntu as the most unstable distro one could use :/ Also, dist upgrades are a bit unnecessary when you can have your /home in a separate partition and do a fresh install of the newer Fedora version in a couple of minutes.
- Shikadi 9y ago
  It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I completely agree. Personally I find Arch to suit my needs better than Fedora, but I do recommend Fedora to friends who aren't going to be setting up i3-wm and want access to the AUR. In the last five years, Ubuntu has been the only distro to cause me major problems that weren't easily resolved. That might partially be familiarity with Arch, but something tells me it's a little more to do with Canonical.
nbaksalyar 9y ago
> It also doesn't even pretend to support upgrades How so? I installed Fedora 21 a couple of years ago and I've been continuously upgrading it up to 25. I've never encountered a single problem with the operating system itself (only with the NVidia driver, which is a major source of pain for all Linux systems, I guess.)
- merb 9y ago
  yep since 21 it's also really table, had some problems on 17, 18, 19, 20, but after that it was rock solid. (even with rpmfusion enabled)
jlgaddis 9y ago
> ... doesn't even pretend to support upgrades. This was certainly true in the past but hasn't really been the case for the last couple of years.
bwat49 9y ago
Fedora upgrades work very well these days

by pekk 9y ago

rantanplan 9y ago

I use Fedora as my primary development OS in my various machines for ~8 years. Previously I was on various SuSE versions and even farther back I was on Slack. Around 2011-2013, I used on my work(office) machines Ubuntu while I continued to have Fedora on my laptop. Fedora not only did it have more recent packages, it was so much more stable than ubuntu that it was incomparable. In general I find Ubuntu as the most unstable distro one could use :/ Also, dist upgrades are a bit unnecessary when you can have your /home in a separate partition and do a fresh install of the newer Fedora version in a couple of minutes.

Shikadi 9y ago
It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I completely agree. Personally I find Arch to suit my needs better than Fedora, but I do recommend Fedora to friends who aren't going to be setting up i3-wm and want access to the AUR. In the last five years, Ubuntu has been the only distro to cause me major problems that weren't easily resolved. That might partially be familiarity with Arch, but something tells me it's a little more to do with Canonical.

nbaksalyar 9y ago

> It also doesn't even pretend to support upgrades How so? I installed Fedora 21 a couple of years ago and I've been continuously upgrading it up to 25. I've never encountered a single problem with the operating system itself (only with the NVidia driver, which is a major source of pain for all Linux systems, I guess.)

merb 9y ago
yep since 21 it's also really table, had some problems on 17, 18, 19, 20, but after that it was rock solid. (even with rpmfusion enabled)

jlgaddis 9y ago

> ... doesn't even pretend to support upgrades. This was certainly true in the past but hasn't really been the case for the last couple of years.

bwat49 9y ago

Fedora upgrades work very well these days