[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora vs Tao vs CentOs as servers



On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 15:47 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> I know this has been discussed, but it was more toward, is FC stable
> enought for use as a production server etc.

Entirely up to you, as an admin to define what is "stable" enough. By
that argument, Ubuntu itself isn't stable enough for server use

> I'm looking more towards the limited life_span of FC compared to it's
> RHEL counterpart. (which is where tao linux/CentOs etc... comes into the
> picture)

Use Centos then

> I'm getting a bit flustered with the term "legacy" where a normal FC
> life-span is only like 18 months before the "legacy" becomes obsolete (I
> think, correct me)

FC-n gets updates for about 8 months if not more (if we stick to a 6
month release cycle). Legacy takes it thru two other release cycles, of
about 12 months. So, yes, probably 18-20 months seems viable.

> Now, RHEL is supposed to last for 5 years. (which is a bit too plenty
> many) Hence, the question of using Tao Linux/Cent Os instead of Fedora.

Use Centos then

> Now, I can always roll my own rpms based on source packages as it _is_
> faster than the mirrors can come out with updated ones. But that's
> another story. (If I had a better/beefier box, I'll just run Gentoo on
> it, but since this is a P133 w/ 128MB Ram, Its more like.. Tough Luck.)

You're really asking on the wrong list...
-- 
Colin Charles, byte aeon com my
http://www.bytebot.net/
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, 
then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]