On Monday 29 March 2004 18:57, Niels Voll wrote: > I had a brief tested the first test release 1, when it appeared in early > March. Of course, it had a few rough spots regarding package > dependencies, but overall it made me want to get the final very soon > after it came out. What immediately struck me, was that what used to be > the RHN updating for RH9, is now a slick updater for Fedora Core 2. > Reminds me a lot of SuSE's very nice YAST2 updating mechanism. And yum > (the command line updater) is included in FC 2 (it was not included in > FC 1, and one had to get it separately). >
*blinks* You are the first person I have heard make this claim. How did you determine that yum was not included in FC1? > For the server: > RH was/is a bit of an industry standard on hosting service providers. So > if you run your own server, but would like your knowledge and > configurations easily transferable to many HSP's, Fedora Core is a very > good option. > This does not make very much sense. Configurations are text files (httpd.conf, pg_hba.conf, bashrc). A file is going to look the same when you open it in vim regardless of using Fedora, RH, SuSE, Mandrake, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Slackware, Gentoo, Caldera ... and the list goes on. Transfering configurations is as simple as copying a file from one computer to another. I do it all of the time ... and between completely polar operating systems. Would you care to elaborate on this statement? Andy _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
