[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LedgerSMB 1.3.6-rc1 released
- Subject: Re: LedgerSMB 1.3.6-rc1 released
- From: Chris Travers <..hidden..>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 05:31:46 -0800
Just a few notes to anyone who may be looking for recommendations.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:21 AM, o1bigtenor <..hidden..> wrote:
> I am also not trying to start any kind of distro war!
> I switched from Fedora for business use because I got right tired of
> having to update every six months (or so). Upgrading sometimes left me
> with issues (I am a serious user NOT a hacker so I still am not very
> proficient at troubleshooting) that cost me a lot of time and
> sometimes expense. So I made a decision to switch to Debian because I
> liked the idea of longer term upgrade cycle. I would like to stay on
> such for precisely that one reason - - I do not like to change systems
> twice a year.
First, as a Fedora user let me say that without a doubt it is a very
lousy server OS. I would not recommend running business servers on
it. I develop on it because it gives me early warnings for the kinds
of issues that may pop up with the RHEL-family of distros. So I do
run LedgerSMB on it in an eat-your-own-dogfood sort of way, so my
failure to follow my own advice here is rather deliberate.
For non-dev installations of LedgerSMB, in my opinion, you really need
a distro with long-term support. This means one of:
1) RHEL and friends (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc)
2) Debian Stable
3) Ubuntu LTS (and friends, like Mint LTS)
4) Anything else with a long support cycle.
The problems that Darald brings up are real ones. There may be
advantages for us devs ignoring these and working on short-term
support releases ourselves. However I would not today use these in
setting up servers for customers.
Debian is not a bad distro, and neither is Scientific Linux.