[RESPONDED] Fedora 40 Not Stable?

I see that Fedora 40 finally made the supported list, but it is listed as “some risk” under Stability.

What isn’t stable?

I believe it just means ‘some risk’ as in fedora is not a stable release like an Ubuntu LTS would be. Fedora is a ‘leading edge’ distribution, meaning it runs practically the latest kernel, software etc so is slightly more prone to stability issues.

Hmm, I don’t recall Fedora 39 being listed as some risk.

Hi @Rodney_McBride ,
welcome to the community.
As far as fedora devs are concerned Fedora 40 is rock solid, the “some risk” label there is to notify users that not all features and functions are tested fully yet on frameworks end, we try our best to test most of it just impossible to cover all, as users are slowly transitioning to Fedora 40 we will have more feedback, then when we are very confident that possible minor issues are addressed then we’ll remove the “some risk” label. Hope that clear things up. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the feedback.

So, I guess Ubuntu was tested first, as it isn’t listed as some risk.

I seems that the best decision for now is to wait until the testing has been completed.

I’ve been on Fedora 40 since release day. Zero problems. Generally speaking if you are worried, or can’t deal with a glitch wait until one month after release with any Fedora release. I would not rely on any testing outside of your own, in your use case, with your exact blend of applications and libraries. That goes for any traditional distro. Immutable or Atomic distros are a different story.

I’ve switched to Fedora 40 when the beta released. Apart from the usual beta-related issues, everything worked great, there were no Framework-specific problems. I think it’s completely okay to upgrade now.

Thanks for the input @nadb & @Jonathan_Haas.

1 Like

Fedora 40 is working well so-far on the Framework 13-inch AMD!

Thinking of getting back onto the Framework bandwagon. Is the 13 inch AMD the best (most performant, stable / reliable / issue-free) 13 inch variant to go with Fedora 40?

I think all the variants work equally well when discussing Fedora compatibility, the Intel laptops just have much worse battery life and more fan noise (and the 11th gen has the coin cell problem).

Compatibility wise, one notable difference is the Wifi card. Technically the Intel card from the Intel laptops is probably better supported on Linux, but the card on the AMD laptop works without issues here. Your mileage may wary though depending on the model of your access point. But if you have problems, it’s probably still better to swap the Wifi card than to get the Intel laptop.

It’s not limited to the Intel-based units.

I just upgraded from Fedora 39 to Fedora 40 (clean install) and I’m still seeing a loss of 20% of the battery charge overnight.

Fedora 40 does not create a swap file during the install, so no hiberation out of the box. I did not catch this during the install.

While it was educational testing out Fedora, I’m going back to Arch. Arch is what I’m used to and I know my way around Arch better than Fedora. Also, this is just my opinion, but I don’t care to use any Linux distro that is commercially influenced/owned like Fedora or Ubuntu. Again, this is just my preference.

The only issue I have with Arch on the framework, is the wifi related when coming out of hibernation. But, I see on here and on the Arch wiki that this issue has been addressed and a work-around has been provided that will eventually make it into the kernel.

YMMV