On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:32 +0800, John Summerfied wrote: > I'd not use FC on a server. > > I maintain several machines, some running Debian, a couple run FC3. > > I maintain the software remotely - where remotely varies from across the > LAN to via dialup Internet. > > apt-get works well and I run it nightly in a cron job to download from a > local mirror. It's easy to configure apt-get to use a particular mirror, > and the initial configuration is done at install time. > > I've not discovered a good way to make yum download "hands off." I > _could_ make it download and install, but that's not my style. I like to > control when updates go in. > > By default, yum uses a selection of mirrors in convenient locations such > as .fi. .il and goodness knows where else. I'm in Australia, and there > are few locations further away than those. It's very easy to make yum use a local mirror. I do this both at home at at work. Just point each repo at your local mirror using the "baseurl" directive in your yum repository configuration instead of using the default mirrorlist. > I see an enormous volume of updates for FC. I've not checked on what > they fix, but I suspect they're mostly not security-related. I think most are usability improvements for the desktop, and probably not really needed on servers. > I'd not like such a volatile selection of software on my server, I'd be > perpetually worried that something will break, and if a server breaks > then the whole enterprise (school in my case) is affected. Yes, for example there was a recent util-linux update that "broke" (though there was a workaround that could be used) client-side NFS mounts to older servers, though an updated update was released the day after. > If you want a Red Hat-based solution then look at the free download > versions of RH's Enterprise Linux. I have not used one, but I might. I > have been downloading the source updates, and they're relatively few as > compared with FC. Agreed. Centos looks a good bet. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
