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

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

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


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

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