FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: P Ruetz (parmailbox-news_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/26/05
- Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: hopehope_123: "Re: page cache - process memory - disk read"
- Next in thread: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:56:56 GMT
Hi,
I have been trying to put Linux on my new Dell 9100. Redhat 9 did not work
because of the USB only keyboard and mouse (or maybe I could get it to work
if I were clever enough). FC 4 worked with the keyboard/mouse but not the
network card. CentOS 4.1 worked much more smoothly. Everything seems to
work on the first pass without kernel rebuilding.
So my question is: Should I even bother with FC in the future or just stick
with one of the Redhat clones (e.g. CentOS)?
I use Linux occasionally to build my software for Linux and Solaris (with a
cross compiler). It is probably pretty obvious that I am no Linux expert,
but can generally "scrape by" with some help.
Thanks,
Peter
- Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: hopehope_123: "Re: page cache - process memory - disk read"
- Next in thread: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|