On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:57:41 +1000 (EST) Res <res@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Attachment:
pgp9rS5Odc756.pgp
Description: PGP signature
