On 8 Feb 2001, at 12:46, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:09:17PM -0500, Phil Barnett wrote:
> >First off, trying to use a .0 release of any Redhat release is,at the
> >very least, foolish.
>
> Are you saying that RedHat 7.0 is worse than RedHat 6.1? If so, you
> either haven't used RedHat 7.0, or haven't used RedHat 6.1... We have
> a RedHat-based release (KRUD -- http://www.tummy.com/krud/) and it was
> on the order of 6 months before 6.1+errata was up to a quality where
> we started basing our distro on it. With 7.0, it was the month after
> it was released. No matter what the press is saying about it...
>
> I find that most people who are bad-mouthing 7.0 have never even used
> it...
>
> What distribution is the best for a newbie? I certainly wouldn't wave
> you off RedHat 7.0. My recommendation is that you use the distribution
> that most of your friends or most of the experienced people in your local
> LUG use. You *WILL* need help, better to not have any reason for your
> friends not to help you.
Well, I'm the president of our local LUG (http://www.leap-cf.org) and
I surely do waive newbies off of Redhat 7.0. Today, we steer
beginners to Mandrake 7.2 for desktops. If you are going to put up
a server and you are a newbie, we suggest Redhat 6.2 only
because the hardening scripts from Bastille work on it but the
Bastille scripts do not yet work correctly on RH7.0. Also, it takes
quite some updating on RH7.0 to get it so it can compile a lot of
things. Something a newbie is probably not going to relish.
My suggestions are from experience, not guessing.
If you are not a newbie, then it's a whole different game.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW http://www.the-oasis.net/
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
