Re: LedgerSMB 1.3.6-rc1 released

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

Hi;

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!

Noted.
>
> 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.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers