[lug] Fedora vs Ubuntu vs Mint

[Davide Del Vento]

>> For me the problem with Fedora is the crazy release schedule.
> I'm also a bit curious how I'd like Arch, with the rolling release model.

I've never tried Arch, but I've tried two or three rolling releases and
they are a pain. They "roll down the hill" (so to speak) without notice and
without a useful "wait a moment" period. Basically you are continuous
upgrading and that's bad (see below).

What I **really** like of Ubuntu (and derivatives) is the LTS schedule (I
don't like Ubuntu per se, as I said I'm running Mint at the moment). You
know in advance how long your install will last (well you know that with
Fedora too) and you'll have plenty of time to update on **your** schedule
(that you don't have at all with Fedora). Actually I never update, I always
do a separate new install on different partition until I get things ready
the way I want them: the update could always go bad (and everything which
can go bad, will). The install also can go bad (much less likely so, but it
can), however my "production" thing is running fine in the other disk or
partition until **I** decide to nuke it, so I don't care if the install of
the shiny new thing breaks (unless it **really** breaks to the level of
destroying a disk/partition I told it not to touch -- which is a reason I
always like to wait a few months to make sure there's not such a horrible
bug in the installer).

That's what works best for me, and the first requirement for a distro to
have for me to consider trying it. Maybe CentOS would match this
requirement, but last time I checked it provided packages so old, that the
old LTS seemed shiny new.

Cheers,
Davide
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20170719/a5287515/attachment.html>