On 07/06/16 05:25, Steven Haigh wrote: > On 2016-06-07 11:14, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 6 June 2016 at 17:27, Rupert Kolb >> <rupert.k...@med.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: >>> Thanks for clarifying. I was not aware of this. >>> >>> For the short term I downgraded to an older version of samba4 (to get my >>> system running again). >>> (And yes, there is an entry in bugzilla for "my" problem. And a link >>> to an >>> upstream patch ....) >>> >>> In the medium term I'm looking for an other distribution: >>> It doesn't make sense to have about 10 years of support (in theory), but >>> updates just every half year. >> >> It depends on what you are defining as an update because it means >> different things. If you are talking about security updates and major >> problem updates then it is sooner than 6 months. >> >>> Then I prefer a system >>> -- where I have to do upgrades to the next major versions more >>> frequently, >>> -- because of merely about 3 years of update support, >>> ++ but with a more current update policy >>> ++ and an overall more recent software. >>> >> >> You are asking a lot for free. > > If the warm fuzzy feeling of a version number update means a lot to you, > and you don't care about reinstalling stuff once a year, Fedora may be > better for you. > > Much more bleeding edge with versions, but you'll need more of an admin > effort to make sure it all works.
Re-installing seems to be getting resolved these days as well, with dnf and the system-upgrade feature. I've updated a few machines from Fedora 22 to Fedora 23 without much hassle. YMMV though. And Fedora other bleeding edge Linux distributions is generally not as stable in a longer term perspective as the enterprise Linux distributions. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
