Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)
From: Ivan Marsh (annoyed_at_you.now)
Date: 09/28/05
- Previous message: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Brian Brunner: "Re: Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:37:37 -0500
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:49:33 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote:
> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>> Yea... you've got the FAA... I've got the FCC.
>>
>> ...and like I said, I've experienced none of these issues.
>>
> I don't want to get into a pissing contest but I doubt that the FCC is
> as strict as the FDA (Federal Drug Admin)
Then don't. I'm aware of what FDA stands for. The FCC is very strict about
a lot of things also. I can end up with the secret service on my doorstep
just a fast as you can.
But that's beside the point of the thread.
> I have no doubt that FC would work for us and our customers but the
> paper work and lack of support wouldn't be worth it; i.e. see my comment
> about 7.3
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread.
There's absolutely nothing about FC4 that is as fundamentally flawed as
this thread has attempted to make it out to be.
-- "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)
- Previous message: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- In reply to: Daniel Ganek: "Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Next in thread: Brian Brunner: "Re: Re: FC vs CentOS (or equiv)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
