Re: FC4 or FC5

[Uno Engborg <uno@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Benton W Middleton wrote:
> bruce <bedouglas <at> earthlink.net> writes:
>
>   
> > why do you suggest fc5?
> >
> > at the same time, what version of rhel is the latest?
> >
> > is there a way to get a the source srpms for rhel? or should one take a look
> > at centos?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > -bruce
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fedora-list-bounces <at> redhat.com
> > [mailto:fedora-list-bounces <at> redhat.com]On Behalf Of Rex Dieter
> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 1:32 PM
> > To: fedora-list <at> redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: FC4 or FC5
> >
> > bruce wrote:
> >     
> > > given the state of things right now.. should someone use FC4 of go ahead
> > >       
> > and
> >     
> > > go to FC5?
> > >       
> > FC5.
> >
> >     
> > > also, can someone who's knowlegable tell me which version of RHEL is
> > > comparable to FC4 and/or FC5?
> > >       
> > The latest, RHEL4 is actually closest to FC3.
> >
> >     
>
>
> ---------------Reply---------------
>
> RHEL_4 is closest to FC3, and maybe 4. Their guide is - - work on CURRENT Fedora
> goes into NEXT RHEL version. Centos keeps up with CURRENT RHEL, but does not
> offer support, as does RedHat. As for choosing between FC4 & FC5, FC4 is more
> stable, except with "Xen", the VM software. FC5 has ver_3.0 which will even let
> you host MS Windows on top of Linux. Those are basically the choices you have in
> that area.
>             - -  Benster! - - 
>
>   
If I'm not mistaken, running windows on Xen 3.0 will require a brand new 
processor that have
hardware support for this. As far as I know these processors haven't hit 
the mass market yet.

Regards
Uno Engborg

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature