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
>> <[log in to unmask]> 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