| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Works-for-meWorks-for-mePosted Apr 16, 2008 14:36 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216)In reply to: Interview: Fedora developers Seth Vidal and Will Woods (Red Hat Magazine) by djabsolut Parent article: Interview: Fedora developers Seth Vidal and Will Woods (Red Hat Magazine) Sorry about your experience, but I've done lots of Fedora upgrades, and they worked for me (no /home erasures). I also like Fedora. Ubuntu is a good competitor, but I believe Fedora is FAR more secure at this time. In particular, Fedora bakes-in a lot of countermeasures to combat unknown vulnerabilities, like SELinux with targeted policies and a long list of buffer overflow countermeasures. Hopefully Ubuntu will adopt more of Fedora's security mechanisms for countering unknown vulnerabilities, just as Fedora is adopting some Ubuntu components like Upstart. I really like the pre-upgrade approach to be in Fedora 9! It enables easy network updates (getting rid of the "create media" step), yet I think it's a much safer way to do major changes to the system compared to Debian-based systems (because you're not running the system while making the radical change). At least technically it looks like the best of all worlds. (If it works well, other distros could easily copy it.) Vive le competition!
(Log in to post comments)
Works-for-me Posted Apr 16, 2008 21:09 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I prefer live updating. Among other things it helps us people use the testing distribution and upgrade it daily, so breakage gets quickly detected. Actually I have seen a few regressions, but it has been years since the last broken package for me, and this is using the testing distro.Maybe it is not so safe as updating from a live CD, and maybe this might make a nice alternative option for updating Debian stable.
|
|||||||||||