[Fedora] Re: FC1 stable, FC2 ... you wish.

[Gerry Tool]

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.

Gerry Tool