On Mon, 23 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. > > On what planet? On Earth lamer, we've run em both side by side, no more maint has had to be given to the slackware boxes than any RH box. > FC1 is as stable for servers as RH9 ever was. The only disadvantage to > Fedora on REAL servers is it's update cycle. It will cost a lot more in what rubbish, see my original post. > > I'm guessing that you did an upgrade from the 7.3 boxes to FC1. That's No! clean installs on both. > FC1 is much more reliable and stable than RH8 ever dreamed it could who said anything about 8? never used 8 at all. > be. And you must be forgetting about the 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, 5.x, 6.x days > as well. Fedora is not bullet proof. Neither was RH9. If you want RH9 is bullet proof on the 3 RH9 boxes remaining.
