Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?
Mauriat M
mirandam at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 14:37:03 UTC 2008
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Albert Graham <agraham at g-b.net> wrote:
> You get out of it what you put in it, this guy clearly could not be
> bothered to look into issues that he was having or why things had
> changed - which is called progress.
If something "changes" and that change breaks something badly should
it be called progress?
> I have installed hundreds of servers using Fedora and I have to say I've
> had very few problems, kernel issues are not really the fault of the
> Fedora team, sometimes you hit quirks but these do get sorted out.
If you haven't already, go read the fedora-list or fedora-devel
archives on the 2.6.24 kernel.
> I find the path / progress and choices Fedora makes are "natural
> progression" and indeed ahead of the pack.
I find that a opinion is just an opinion.
> this guy should be using RHEL if he does not want anything to change.
So RHEL is the only way someone might want to have a desktop linux
that can in some capacity act as a server. Noted.
Does not want to break is independent of does not want to change.
> My 2c.
Which is probably the same value as the rant on that webpage.
-Mauriat
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list