Res wrote:
I fought pretty hard and won to keep NT off of our desktops at work. NT4 was pretty bad.On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Joe Klemmer wrote:
Slackware. There's just to much missing from it. I know it can do the
job just fine but the maintenance of a Slack box is astronomical
compared to any of the other distros. You would probably be better
actually no, its about the same as RH.
I do not know what checking process is in place now with this 'open coSo far I've found the quality of packages in FC1 to be a bit better
munity' bullshit but its F'in pathetic QC compared to the old.
than RH 9, but YMMV.
reliability + stability = RH of old.
fedora reminds me of NT, for desktops its fine, but forget any REAL server
use.
I can't say that NT 4 or NT5 (w2k), NT5.1 (xp) or later (whatever server 2003 is called) makes a good server or not. I do know that NT4 as a server sometimes locks files and messes up some MS applications.
Fedora seems to me to be better than the prior distributions. This is said that things are advancing and I see no instability with the distribution. If you are running third party applications or proprietory drivers, this might be a different experience.we had 7.3 boxes running untill recent that NEVER missed a beat, never had to touch them,, like the RH9 boxes we have.... since fedora went on the 7.3 boxes, well, what a nightmare, daily interventions. I know of others who were running 7.3 samba servers, fedora destroyed it, they gave up and reinstalled 7.3 and backups from tape, they have told me they will not touch it again either. I know RH engineers work on this project, but the QC crew sure as hell dont, if they did FC1 WOULD be as relaible and stable as previous RH's.
-- You worry too much about your job. Stop it. You are not paid enough to worry.
