Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: P Ruetz (parmailbox-news_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/27/05
- Previous message: BN: "64 Bit check"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:21:47 GMT
"Daniel Ganek" <ganek@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dhbsjd$200$1@pcls4.std.com...
>
> 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
I understand what you are saying. I really wanted to stay with RH9 which
had been working fine for years. The problem was I could not install it on
a my machine with USB only keyboard and mouse. I got to the point in the
install where I was supposed to press a key, but the keyboard wasn't
working. That is when I went to FC4, Knoppix, CentOS, etc. Does any know
if this problem can be overcome with RH9 or I am forced to move on to
something else?
Thanks,
Peter
- Previous message: BN: "64 Bit check"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Ivan Marsh: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
