On 7/06/2016 7:43 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
> 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.

I agree with everything you said - however if a version number is that
important, then its probably a fair choice.

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: https://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897