"stable" versions

[Michael Shigorin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 08:53:59AM +0800, John wrote:
> >>>it's just that infamous "latest stable" Linux 2.6 is only
> >>>getting somewhat stable this year.  I'd consider getting it on
> >>>servers probably at the same old rule-of-thumb's 2.6.20...
> >>RHEL and Fedora Core users seem happy with 2.6.
> >Well I don't particularly care for FC users since they either
> >*do* understand it's beta forever (and need no care) -- or
> To be consistend, you must hold the same opionion od Sid and
> Testing users.

It's not exactly the same "theoretically" since Debian folks
I know and communicate with (personally, or in debian-russian@)
aren't needing care, too.  FC is more splintered here though,
there are Red Hat old-timers who started LUG here and still there 
are people who would pick that up from thick with buzz air and
then catch some gotchas.

But practically, seems yes (with "opinion" being not "on users"
but rather "on uses" -- with the paramount factor being "does it
work or not").

The main problem with "new" technologies is not that they don't
work but how much weird cases are not handled properly.  If it's
about "technology" and not a "buzzword" at all, that is.

> >*don't* (and may need a hint but definitely not exactly care).
> >:-)
> I'm running Fedora Core on a couple of machines (Ubuntu didn't
> suite me when I hd to make the choice), and it's fine.

I guess. ("cat 1" :)

> No silly sagas like selinux is Stable (aka Woody).  For those
> who don't know, selinux didn't actually work in Woody though it
> was supposed to. Croker and the others couldn't get the fixes
> into Woody because "they are not security-related."

Well the favourite selinux advice on Fedora media is "turn it off"...
seems like it's a default even.

Still it should get more testing than being just not compiled in.
And that's the point.

#include <dscl.h>

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/