Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: Ivan Marsh (annoyed_at_you.now)
Date: 09/26/05
- Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: Dimitris Mexis: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:48:55 -0500
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:45:44 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
I'm running FC on several production servers with no issues so I'm don't
think I can agree with that statement.
-- "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)
- Next message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- Previous message: Dimitris Mexis: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|