for the most part

Steven Rosenberg concludes his article "Fedora is remarkably stable despite a constant flow of new" by saying, "But for the most part, it works."

That falls in line with my experiences; my first Fedora release was F14, and from there I ran each release through F18. As Rosenberg notes, sometimes things go wrong. "...kernels, applications and lots of other components are new, new, new," he writes; several times with Fedora, I had to revert to using an older kernel because the most recent one sent down the pipe didn't work out here.

Writing about Mat Enders' comments about Fedora in a recent episode of Sunday Morning Linux Review, Rosenberg says:

Mat's point, more specifically, was that he has less trouble with Fedora than he did with Debian Sid, the "Unstable" release that gets new packages all the time.

What's notable is that Fedora is almost always ahead of Debian Sid when it comes to newness. (It's not ahead of Arch, but what is?)

However, so far I seem to be having less trouble with Arch than I had with Fedora. And, while Arch might be more difficult to install than Fedora, it's a rolling-release distro; in theory, you could go years rolling with the same installation.

Not to knock Fedora here, though; I enjoyed using it. I'd probably still be running it, if I wasn't running Arch, and I may even get back around to Fedora at some point. I'm a Debian person when it comes to my production machine, where I need "solid and stable," but one thing I liked about Fedora was getting to try out new stuff -- especially newer versions of KDE and GNOME.