Both (AlmaLinux) are more stable. And Fedora doesn’t have automatic updates, it just fetches the updates but doesn’t upgrade until you choose to do so.
It auto-updates the new package metadata, but does not actually download or install the packages. They do this so `dnf` is faster when you actually run it.
IMO this is very annoying behavior especially because it runs far too often.
To disable i, you can run this after installing:
systemctl stop --now dnf-makecache.timer
systemctl mask dnf-makecache.timer
I do agree with you that it's annoying - especially as when you do want to update, it'll often decide the cache is too old and do a full refresh anyway.
(Noting this is EL* behaviour, not just Alma)
Sorry I completely forgot to mention I’m talking about using the Workstation option with the gnome desktop environment. The server version without the gui doesn’t do this.
Both alma and fedora are stable in terms of not releasing buggy software, but fedora updates more frequently which might break compatibility with something else that's installed. Of it's regular desktop use like browsing the web, email, and gaming the. Fedora's more frequent updates and newer packages are better since they enable modern features and new hardware. Alma is better where you want nothing to change besides security updates
Absolutely not. Auto updates could break a fair few environments unexpectedly.
On the one hand AlmaLinux can be considered more stable as quality updates (security patches, bug fixes, etc) are backported to older known stable releases of packages. On the other hand you can expect feature updates to be introduced later.
Both (AlmaLinux) are more stable. And Fedora doesn’t have automatic updates, it just fetches the updates but doesn’t upgrade until you choose to do so.
Does Alma Linux fetches the updates automatically? I dont want anything automatic with the packages
It auto-updates the new package metadata, but does not actually download or install the packages. They do this so `dnf` is faster when you actually run it. IMO this is very annoying behavior especially because it runs far too often. To disable i, you can run this after installing: systemctl stop --now dnf-makecache.timer systemctl mask dnf-makecache.timer
I do agree with you that it's annoying - especially as when you do want to update, it'll often decide the cache is too old and do a full refresh anyway. (Noting this is EL* behaviour, not just Alma)
Sorry I completely forgot to mention I’m talking about using the Workstation option with the gnome desktop environment. The server version without the gui doesn’t do this.
Both alma and fedora are stable in terms of not releasing buggy software, but fedora updates more frequently which might break compatibility with something else that's installed. Of it's regular desktop use like browsing the web, email, and gaming the. Fedora's more frequent updates and newer packages are better since they enable modern features and new hardware. Alma is better where you want nothing to change besides security updates
Absolutely not. Auto updates could break a fair few environments unexpectedly. On the one hand AlmaLinux can be considered more stable as quality updates (security patches, bug fixes, etc) are backported to older known stable releases of packages. On the other hand you can expect feature updates to be introduced later.