A chuckle about FC3

[Alma J Wetzker]

Net Llama! wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
> 
>>Even with the final conclusion given in full context, I am not tempted to go
>>with FC?.  A decade or more ago I really wanted to develop the expertise of
>>some of the real masters like we have on this list.  At this point, I would
>>rather tinker with my lego mindstorm than my computer.  I want the computer to
>>Just Work Dammit (tm).  Being a student also lends to that attitude.  I cannot
>>afford to have the system down AT ALL during a semester.  (Which is why my
>>gentoo is borken, too long between updates.)
> 
> 
> Maybe i'm just lucky, but I've got two production servers running FC3, and
> haven't had a single problem with either.  I'll be upgrading a third from
> FC2 to FC3 as soon as I haev the time.
> 
> I think the majority of semi-unstable components in FC3 are the desktop
> stuff.  However, since i use XFCE, i don't even hit that stuff much at
> all on my workstations that are running FC3.

I suspect that what you are experiencing is a bit more than luck.  I get the 
general impression that you are quite particular about how you want your 
systems setup.  I wonder things like, do you accept all default 
configurations, or do you alter things to suit your needs, do you run the 
default kernel, or do you recompile for your applications, do you go through 
the running services with a fine tooth comb to get exactly what you want?  I 
believe that you have a broad understanding of what makes a stable system and 
you tailor your personal setup to that standard.  My guess would be that you 
would have good luck with stable systems with any distro you cared to install.

I envy your understanding of the systems and ability to work through problems. 
  School is hard enough for me right now that I don't have the free brain 
cells to keep up with linux (or windows or mac).

I apologize for starting this.  The parent post just hit me the wrong way and 
I am getting ready for finals.  Not an excuse, but please try to understand. 
I think it was taking issue with how something was said without addressing 
what was said that did it.  Sorry.

     -- Alma