Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: Daniel Ganek (ganek_at_comcast.net)
Date: 09/27/05
- Next message: BN: "Installing X Libraries"
- Previous message: Tommy Reynolds: "Re: Iptables not starting"
- In reply to: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:39:09 -0400
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:39:47 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:48:55 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I'm using FC3 and FC4 on half a dozen machines without problems. There
>>are more packages available for Fedora then there are for RHEL systems
>>(although the FC packages will generally work on the similar RHEL
>>systems) so Fedora is a better choice for a knowledgeable end user.
>>However Fedora is always a moving target because it's a development
>>platform. When a new FC is released it's going to be crap, that's
>>guaranteed.
>
>
> Like I said... that hasn't been my experience.
>
It all comes down to how you define "real work" I'm in the medical applications
business and must not only answer to our customers but also the FDA. There's no way
we could validate FC for ourselves as development systems or for our customers. In
this field you pick a system and stick with it for as long as possible; i.e. many years.
(We're finally phasing out HP-UX 10.20!)
We attempted to use RH7.3 but quickly realized after 1 year that we couldn't support
new HW. As SW development engineers we can't waste time messing around with this month's
release of FC. The OS is just a commodity - no different than a keyboard, monitor or hard
drive. It better work out-of-the-box. We switched to RHEL3 and will stick with it for a
few years; i.e. until RH stops supporting what we need - probably RHEL5 or 6.
/dan
- Next message: BN: "Installing X Libraries"
- Previous message: Tommy Reynolds: "Re: Iptables not starting"
- In reply to: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: P Ruetz: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Reply: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
