J Thanks. That made me feel all warm & fuzzy inside knowing that Debian Stable was as solid as running RHEL.
cs On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 15:20 -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > Tracy R Reed wrote: > > >Have you tried installing Fedora Core 4 (soon to be 5) on it? Running > > >debian stable (which is mostly circa 1995 anyway! ;) doesn't count. > > > > Ooooooooo. That's gotta hurt since both parts of that statement ring true. > > I have no idea about Fedora Core's inability to run on working hardware. > I cannot judge that. I don't see why it could not. We are talking > Pentiuym class hardware, not 386 or 486. > > Secondly, Debian Stable is far from 1995, considering that it runs-out- > of-the-box the 2.6 Linux kernel. > > Yes, it is fun to beat up on Debian because of a perceived slowness in > release cycles. If you want to go that way, let's make a more > appropriate comparison, shall well? > > Point 1) Fedora is not Red Hat > Point 2) Fedora is a ork of Red hat > Point 3) Red Hat is the Enterprise Level Linux offering > Point 4) Fedora is the end-user Linux offering. > > Compare Fedora to Ubuntu. > Compare Red Hat to Debian. > > Oh, Fedora does not stack up so well anymore, does it? > > I thought not. > > -john > > -- _______________________________________ Christian Seberino, Ph.D. SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego Code 2872 49258 Mills Street, Room 158 San Diego, CA 92152-5385 U.S.A. Phone: (619) 553-9973 Fax : (619) 553-0804 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
