-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ralph Shumaker wrote: > R P Herrold wrote: >> >> well, not exactly 'fully' -- It is lightly QA'ed, releases late, and >> after much gnashing of teeth. RH's approach on Fedora clearly has >> been and is still advertised as a non-long-term, non-enterprise ready >> approach
Yep. I really like this system. Linux is advancing very quickly. There needs to be a rapid development distribution with short release cycles that always includes the latest stuff for people who want to see the state of the art. That is Fedora. There also needs to be a long lived distribution for servers and other machines people just want to work. That is RHEL. Or in my case I prefer CentOS since I do not need RH's support. > Which distribution would be a better selection? That is, which > distribution has a better focus on its "free" version? IMO this is CentOS. It is compiled from RH's source RPM's so it is identical to RHEL4 except they have removed RedHat's name and logo (per RedHat's request). You can use RedHat's RHEL4 updates with CentOS4 as it is completely compatible. People even run Oracle and other allegedly RHEL4 only applications on it. Plus it will be around for at least a couple of years so you know it will have long term support just like RHEL4. The only difference is you can't call RedHat if something goes wrong. - -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCrwux9PIYKZYVAq0RAmfaAKCY7JcaTcHL37n9OcFp2MSVqrPvpgCfawzR F7BBtMsQp6kGLUiEckyt+xk= =tqTs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
