On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Gerry Tool wrote: > Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > > > > I'm still running RHL 9 for my home server because, by the time I was > > satisfied that FC 1 was working relatively well on a test PC, FC 2 came > > out. Well, that meant that my FC 1 install would only be supported for > > another couple of months. (Yes, I know about fedora legacy, but they're > > swamped and don't have a track record yet.) So, I held off to see how FC > > 2 would work. It doesn't. There are a *lot* of things broken with FC 2, > > several of which are show-stoppers for me. (Is *anybody* *ever* gonna fix > > OpenSSL so that dovecot will work with it???) > > > > I can't afford to run RHEL ES at home, and the WS doesn't have all of the > > services that I run for myself. I'm not rich, nor am I a corporation. > > I'm just a guy who wants to have his little 866MHz PIII Celeron humming > > away doing what I need it to. Fedora would be just fine if I could count > > on installing it and then being able to leave it for a year or two without > > having to worry about whether or not the security patches would dry up. > > > > Have you considered Whitebox Enterprise Linux? See > > http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/ > > I have it installed on a partition and visit once in a while. It is > frequently updated with errata, and appears to be a true free clone of > RHEL 3.0. Yep, I'd seen that one around before, but hadn't seriously investigated it. I think I'll give that one a shot. Thanks! Ben
