Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: Daniel Ganek (ganek_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/26/05
- Next message: Dimitris Mexis: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: P Ruetz: "FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Ivan Marsh: "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 12:45:44 -0400
P Ruetz wrote:
> 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
>
>
Stick with CentOS - it's very stable; especially since you're doing real work(tm)
FC is RH's bleed edge stuff - Great for experimenting but not for real work.
/dan
- Next message: Dimitris Mexis: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: P Ruetz: "FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|