<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.0.9"> </HEAD> <BODY> Hi Dave, Fedora is being described as a distribution for developers and enthusiasts. I wouldn't suggest putting it on a server that needs minimum down time. If you like redhat, then you should stick with redhat 9 (if you don't want to spend too much) or spring for redhat enterprise 3, if you want something really stable and supported. A note on redhat 9, it won't be officially supported for much longer. All the details are at <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com">http://www.redhat.com</A> Cheers! On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 18:50, Dave Oxley wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE>My company is buying a new Dell server (2x2.4GHz P4 Xeon, 2Gb RAM, 73Gb RAID 1 SCSI) for our production customer facing web site and I have been trying to decide on which Linux distribution to use. It needs to run Apache, tomcat, sendmail, mysql, php and bind and have minimum downtime. We normally have about 25Gb of HTTP traffic a month, but is likely to double over the next 12 months. I am not fussed about having paid for support (that's my job!) I was going to choose RH9 (after deciding against Debian), but I just found out about Fedora. Is Core 1 suitable for this type of environment? Or would you recommend I go with RH9 or Debian. Cheers.</PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <PRE><TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%"> <TR> <TD> Jason Connor Colorado State University Master's Candidate, Dept. of Computer Science <A HREF="mailto:connor@cs.colostate.edu">connor@cs.colostate.edu</A> </TD> </TR> </TABLE> </PRE> </BODY> </HTML>