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

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

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.



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