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 :) > 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. > 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 :) -- Regards, Res
