Hi Les,
I'm sorry that you don't understand my response, but I did actually take
the time to visit the reference website you posted that "slated" the
Fedora a distribution, It was clear to me that, that guy does not have a
clue and is getting what he deserves, surely you understand that you
should not be taking his advice - that would be a case of the blind
leading the blind.
Best regards,
Albert.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Albert Graham wrote:
I have installed hundreds of servers using Fedora and I have to say
I've had very few problems, kernel issues are not really the fault
of the Fedora team, sometimes you hit quirks but these do get
sorted out.
How many years have you maintained these servers and how much damage
does downtime cause?
None, as they are almost all clustered/load balanced/redundant.
OK, but you might have mentioned that in your first post which could
have been taken to mean hundreds of different offices were each
relying on the one server you set up there. Fedora is OK if downtime
doesn't matter.
Originally I was using RH 2.1 then 3, however, I found myself
constantly upgrading components because RH did not want to break
"version" compatibility for 5 years, which in my eyes is worse than
binary compatibly - Moores law and all that! so Fedora suits me down
to the ground.
The only real issue is a stable kernel for your requirements,
everything else is less important, also I have a habit of running
everything in user-space so it's a lot easier to virtualize or switch
out the underlying OS if required.
How do you virtualize "everything"? You have to have a real kernel
and device drivers somewhere. If that isn't an up-to-date fedora then
you are talking about something very different than it seems here.
