On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 18:35, Res 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. Slack is very stable but extremely difficult to manage and upgrade. Until very recently the only real upgrade path from one version to the next was format and reinstall from scratch. Even now it's still a LOT of work to keep things updated and in sync. Slackware isn't a bad distro by any means. It's just not what one would pick for anything more than a little, single service system. -- Kuramarujo - http://www.webtrek.com/~klemmerj/sumo.html
