Re: LedgerSMB 1.3.6-rc1 released

[Philip Rhoades <..hidden..>]

Chris, Darald,


On 2011-11-24 00:31, Chris Travers wrote:
> 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.


I tend to stick on a Fedora version till the end of it's supported life 
so I get about 11 months or so.  Having said that though, Fedora IS the 
bleeding edge for RH . .


> 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.


Could you elaborate a little?  I have always been pretty happy with 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.


which is what it is meant for of course . .


> 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.


Agreed.


> Debian is not a bad distro, and neither is Scientific Linux.


I might have a look at a virtual SL setup now on your recommendation!

Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
E-mail:  ..hidden..