[Fedora] Re: FC1 stable, FC2 ... you wish.
Benjamin J. Weiss
benjamin at Weiss.name
Wed Jun 9 02:01:28 UTC 2004
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Gerry Tool wrote:
> Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
> >
> > I'm still running RHL 9 for my home server because, by the time I was
> > satisfied that FC 1 was working relatively well on a test PC, FC 2 came
> > out. Well, that meant that my FC 1 install would only be supported for
> > another couple of months. (Yes, I know about fedora legacy, but they're
> > swamped and don't have a track record yet.) So, I held off to see how FC
> > 2 would work. It doesn't. There are a *lot* of things broken with FC 2,
> > several of which are show-stoppers for me. (Is *anybody* *ever* gonna fix
> > OpenSSL so that dovecot will work with it???)
> >
> > I can't afford to run RHEL ES at home, and the WS doesn't have all of the
> > services that I run for myself. I'm not rich, nor am I a corporation.
> > I'm just a guy who wants to have his little 866MHz PIII Celeron humming
> > away doing what I need it to. Fedora would be just fine if I could count
> > on installing it and then being able to leave it for a year or two without
> > having to worry about whether or not the security patches would dry up.
> >
>
> Have you considered Whitebox Enterprise Linux? See
>
> http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/
>
> I have it installed on a partition and visit once in a while. It is
> frequently updated with errata, and appears to be a true free clone of
> RHEL 3.0.
Yep, I'd seen that one around before, but hadn't seriously investigated
it. I think I'll give that one a shot.
Thanks!
Ben
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list