We chose SL for the same reasons. In general I get the feeling we are getting in a catch-22 situation. SL delivers us stability and easier maintenance, but at the price of increased instability or even a lack of support on newer hardware because of the older kernels and the delay in backporting of newer kernel features. I have no idea what the answer is, but I do have the idea the problem is increasing. For now, we just try to get our customers to stay away from the latest and greatest hardware. (As an aside: it turned out Fedora core 8 also didn't work on this particular model). Roelof van der Kleij IT dept. Gorlaeus Laboratories Chris Cooke wrote: > On 30 Jan 2008, at 23:58, John Summerfield wrote: > >> Roelof van der Kleij wrote: >>> Maybe fedora is the way to go for desktops? >> >> >> It might be. Fedora has newer technology; if you're developing >> software to deploy to next RHEL, that makes sense. >> >> OTOH it's higher maintenance. It will fail more often - new >> technology has its risks, you need to upgrade more often to remain on >> supported releases and your users will spend more time learning their >> new desktops. > > Yes, we're moving in the other direction because of the need to > upgrade Fedora so often. By the time we've ported our system > configuration software to a newer Fedora release and upgraded a > thousand plus machines to it, a Fedora release has a lot less than a > year left before it's out of maintenance. This puts us in some > difficulty as we only have time for an annual OS upgrade. We've used > Fedora for several years but we're now moving to Scientific Linux to > get the extra support period. > > -- Chris. > > Computing Officer, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.