See below
On Mar 2, 9:54 am, Roy Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > I use both 64-bit Intrepid and 64-bit Jaunty without any problems at > all. Don't fall into the trap that because you are having problems > everyone else is. > It's no trap. I went to the forums on Ubuntu.com. The release was far worse than I suspected even in my darkest thoughts. > My opinion for what it is worth is that if you need something for > business and crave stability that you should not have been running > Intrepid in the first place. People who want stability should run the > LTS releases only. In your case it should have been Hardy. > Opinions are what they are. There was a requirement to upgrade for certain functionality. The upgrade didn't happen "just cuz". > > You could try 64-bit Debian or one of its variants. They just released > Lenny which is based on stable. I would suggest that MEPIS might be a > good fit. It uses Debian, but supports a newer kernel and it still > uses Synaptic. If you are going to move to RPM, try Mandriva. Fedora > is like Ubuntu. It is more bleeding edge and package kit is just plain > bad. Avoid Fedora if you crave stability. Likewise with openSUSE, IMO. > Their method of resolving dependency problems leads novices into > making poor decisions that result in instability. > SuSE has always been a hate-hate-forced relationship with me. KDE on SuSE is incredibly well done. RPM Hell and YAST kind of ruin the entire experience though. I won't look at an RPM distro other than SuSE though. If I _have_ to deal with RPM Hell I want to deal with it on a version that has a lot of _paid_ developers. No other RPM distro has the number of paid developers SuSE has. Red Hat is something to avoid for the following reasons: 1) They hired the guy who added what passed for clustering to Tru/64 to do the same thing for them. 2) Oracle is now undercutting Red Hat on support contract pricing 3) Oracle has taken a source release of the Red Hat server edition and is creating their own server fork. That is why you now hear them talk of "Grid Computing" instead of "Clustering". OpenVMS from DEC (now HP) is still the first and only OS to do clustering correctly. Tru/64's implementation of clustering was pathetic and they had access to _all_ of the clustering source code in use at DEC. Clustering requires that the Unix kernel basically be re-written to OpenVMS. While I'm all for that, the 3-5 year learning curve required by two corporations involved in a p*ssing contest is going to leave a lot of people in the lurch. Any remaining "desktop edition" will be wildly forked away from the server edition. I don't make the decision to move to a new desktop lightly. Conversion is a 4 day effort on my part and just for my primary workstation. I can't place myself at the mercy of releases which are so poorly tested. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ubuntu Linux" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ubuntulinux?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
