--- "Scot L. Harris" <webid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 20:57, Ken Rambler wrote: > > I'm sorta the new FC kid on the block and a little > confused. The last > > version I used was RH9, very stable. How does FC3 > and FC4 compare? > > Which would be best for a production server? > > > > All these comments have me on guard :-) > > > (please do not top post) > > For production servers you should use RHEL or Centos > or one of the other > RH clones. Or stay with FC3 for the time being. > Unless there is some > feature or functionality that is only in FC4 nothing > is forcing anyone > to upgrade. :) > > Please review the Fedora home page. The objectives > are clearly stated. > > If you choose to load FC4 be prepared to spend time > sorting out various > problems and tweaking the system to get it to work > as you expect. > > > Personally I think even numbered releases of FC have > bad karma. :) > > > -- > Scot L. Harris > webid@xxxxxxxxxx > Acutally, I am using FC2 and it seems to work much better thant FC3 or 4. My audio works without any problems (plays CDs, system event sounds are not distorted), my video has no problems what so ever (Matrox G450), and I have yet to have to run down 5000 missing libs everytime I go to install a addon piece of software. I am still playing with FC4 on a secondary boot drive but so far I still with FC2 for my main system. I did try FC3 and it was not as bad as FC4 but it did break the system sound events (CDs played ok). I am using a univeral standard real Sound Blaster 32 card. Should be no problem with any release of Fedora, but oh well.....
