[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fedora-legacy-list Digest, Vol 3, Issue 24


> > Even though it would be nice to not have to upgrade the FC1 machines
> > until FC2 has been around for a while (and through several rounds of bug
> > fixes), they are, after all, not servers.
> First, that is the whole foundation of FL.
> Second, a lot of people are running FC1 on servers (for better or for
> worse).
> > Even through it has been solid for me on the desktop, when it came out
> > FC1 was billed as an unstable release.
> Red Hat engineers have been pretty sworn that it was a stable option
> for servers on every mailing list I've been on where the topic came up.
> >  I suspect that for the most
> > part people have not installed it on servers.
> While I wish that was true, it isn't.  Many small shops are running
> it on servers.

I run it on 3 production servers which provide various on-line services for my 
clients. I also run it at home for ADSL dialup (PPPoE), squid, DNS, firewall.

I don't understand what the mystery is in getting this on production and on 
servers, I run it and i'm positive many others do to. Apart from the SMP 
kernel problem (which I worked around) I didn't have any other issues and have 
found it rock solid for work, business and personal use.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]