RH now exiting 1 more data center

[Vincent]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:57:41 +1000 (EST)
Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:35:14 +1000 (EST), Res wrote
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> > >
> > > > And that's not even the kicker -- the kicker is that the alternative he's
> > > > using is *Slackware*.  An even less appropriate product for the role in
> > which
> > > > he's using it.
> > >
> > > how do you conclude that ? we have never had a problem with slackware
> > > servers, they have been as stable as the old RH ones.
> >
> > A variety of reasons (some of which Fedora also suffers from):
> >
> 
> well, as servers they are only really required to run sendmail, qmail,
> apache, bind, sql, pop3/vpopmail, now nntp and soon irc, all of which
> they do and more, and have done for years without a glitch.
> 
> > Perhaps there have been some recent strides in how Slackware can be managed.
> its always been intended to be as close as unix as possible, unlike redhat
> which is more like windows :)

yeah and slackware is more like slackware 3.0 too, what is your point?
 
> > Does the software support the use of both source and binary packages with an
> > integrated build system and support the signing of packages so you can be
> > assured you're getting trustworthy packages?  Is there dependency checking
> > built into the package management system?
> 
> we dont go round installing things left right and center, no ISP
> should for security and stability reasons.

So why complain about Fedora? why not run slackware beta and yell at slackware
for making an unstable distro? Or head over to debian-unstable and tell them how
thier cutting edge distro falls short of an ISP's high standards.
This really is getting to be frustrating.

> 
> > Granted, your organization may not require these things and that may make
> > Slackware a more attractive choice for you.  As a rule of thumb, though
> 
> we are interested in stability and reliability, someting slackware and rh
> have always shown, untill now, like I said if I want myself and other
> engineers to reboot kerlnel paniced crashed boxes everyday I'll install
> NT/W2K servers :)
> 
> 
Slackware and Red Hat are still stable. You're talking about Fedora being unstable
remember? I apoligise for my tone but you've been asked a couple of times to
give details on what the problem was. All we have gotten back is how Red Hat is
Windows, Slackware is better and you have a job at an ISP that can't run a bleeding
edge distro. If you do not plan on submitting a bug report or explaining your
problem, please make your switch of distros as quick as possible. So we can get
back to helping people who want solutions to thier problems.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040223/a1117207/attachment-0001.sig>