I think same... All distributions are based on same kernels... And in my opinion, Kernel is who does all work in an operative systemm.. I am wrong?...
Actually I am running 3 * boxes in 3 Machines with Redhat 9.0, all are Athlon based. I had some problems, but generally those problem was related to bugs on * and not on Linux.. I have some friends that test Asterisk using Gentoo and Debian, with success results... So just select distro what you feel more comfortable... Regards Sebastian Nocetti -----Mensaje original----- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Walt Reed Enviado el: Jueves, 29 de Julio de 2004 10:12 a.m. Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Best Linux for Asterisk On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:23:41PM +0000, Mark Woods said: > > > > No, it won't be the absolute latest code, but the Debian community > > > is pretty good about keeping packages updated. > > ah! ah! ah! > > really... oh oh, so why debian is eons later in releasing new > > packages... > > > > perhaps you're speaking of -unstable debian... that's waaaay too > > unstable. > > Ahhhh...but I *am* running unstable! And it's been quite, well, > stable! > > :) There is a huge misconception about stable vs unstable. FWIW, I have found debian unstable to be more stable than most other distro's "stable" releases. For a truely unstable version, "experimental" would be it. Most of the "unstable" behavior has been in GUI based parts: Gnome in particular. Since no sane person runs * on a machine that is also running X, it's a non-issue. I've been running * on unstable for about 6 months now with zero downtime other than a few upgrades. Ditto for about a dozen other servers doing high-volume mail, web serving, etc. I find "stable" unsuitable for most things as all the packages and libraries are too outdated. Yes, the backports help, but then you are not really running stable anymore are you? There are too many dependancies now on other software that needs to be up to date in order to function properly and have the features needed. Anyway, I don't think that it's possible to have a "best linux" to run any kind of server on. They are all damn good. The core of any linux distro handling non-gui based server applications is virtually identical. Most of the differences are package versions, minor configuration tweaks, package management, and other non-important (when it comes to stability) factors. Do your own research and find one you are comfortable with. For a platform with long-term stability where packages are not constantly changing, maybe something like WhiteBox Linux which is based on the RedHat Enterprise would be appropriate. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
