Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: P Ruetz (parmailbox-news_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/26/05
- Next message: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Previous message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:50:21 GMT
"Daniel Ganek" <ganek@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dh98jo$etk$1@pcls4.std.com...
>
>
> 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
Thanks, Dan. It is good to know that CentOS is a reliable solution that I
can count on.
Peter
- Next message: General Schvantzkoph: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Previous message: Ivan Marsh: "Re: SELinux"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]