fair comment i didn't express myself well. I have RH 7.3 with some non-redhat rpm's, because at the time I installed them redhat did not have, for example, a properly working cyrus-imap daemon, or a properly working spamassassin. Now I'm finding that if I want to update either I will probably need to update to rh 8.x or 9, which is not something I relish on a live server.
so i've got myself into a bit of a bind, and this time will choose something else, something with working versions of the software i want. I am not interested in paying a RH subscription, as its only a small server and I am a tightass. I am considering debian for its stability and its updateability, and gentoo for its latest packages and updateability. If I was going to do a number of them for "clients" [1] i would probably do debian, as its my own baby I am attracted to gentoo. [1] ie assuming i was an IT professional. On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:59:19 +1200 Chris Hellyar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <mild rant..> > > RPM hell on a server? If you're running a business on a box you > shouldn't be installing any rpm's that didn't come from the distro > provider, and, ergo, rpm hell should not occur. > > We have 8 RedHat servers at work with a corporate RHN subscription, they > operate as File&Print, Firewall, Web server, intranet, and appliances. > I've never had an RPM conflict on them, because the only thing that > isn't RedHat supplied is the UPS daemon from APC. > > RPM Hell generally comes from trying to install RPM's from someone apart > from the distro provider, or installing Patches out of order. In either > case you've lost the plot if you're doing this on your server that users > depend on. > > In terms of business continuity and disaster recovery positions RedHat > is probably the best offering at the business end of the OSS/Linux > market. That's why they are so big, companies look at their model and > can see how they will get on when things go wrong. I look at Debian and > Gentoo and shiver about the time it might take to re-build a complex > server built on either of them. > > No business in it's right mind would allow an IT supplier to install a > server which required detailed Linux knowledge to install, whereas you > can write a one page description of how to build a RedHat server, add > the packages needed, run up2date and restore a backup. > > </mild rant> > > Chris Goes back to sleep... > > On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 11:38, Nick Rout wrote: > > mechanism. (you did touch on this later in your email). rpm hell is to > > be avoided. for that reason my next server (for which I already have the > > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
