RH now exiting 1 more data center

[Jim Cornette]

Res wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Joe Klemmer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Slackware.  There's just to much missing from it.  I know it can do the
>>job just fine but the maintenance of a Slack box is astronomical
>>compared to any of the other distros.  You would probably be better
>>    
>>
>
>actually no, its about the same as RH.
>
>  
>
>>>I do not know what checking process is in place now with this 'open co
>>>munity' bullshit but its F'in pathetic QC compared to the old.
>>>      
>>>
>>	So far I've found the quality of packages in FC1 to be a bit better
>>than RH 9, but YMMV.
>>    
>>
>
>reliability + stability = RH of old.
>fedora reminds me of NT, for desktops its fine, but forget any REAL server
>use.
>  
>
I fought pretty hard and won to keep NT off of our desktops at work. NT4 
was pretty bad.
I can't say that NT 4 or NT5 (w2k), NT5.1 (xp) or later (whatever server 
2003 is called) makes a good server or not. I do know that NT4 as a 
server sometimes locks files  and messes up some MS applications.

>we had 7.3 boxes running untill recent that NEVER missed a beat, never
>had to touch them,, like the RH9 boxes we have.... since fedora went on
>the 7.3 boxes, well, what a nightmare, daily interventions.
>I know of others who were running 7.3 samba servers, fedora destroyed it,
>they gave up and reinstalled 7.3 and backups from tape, they have told me
>they will not touch it again either. I know RH engineers work on this
>project, but the QC crew sure as hell dont, if they did FC1 WOULD be as
>relaible and stable as previous RH's.
>
>  
>
Fedora seems to me to be better than the prior distributions. This is 
said that things are advancing and I see no instability with the 
distribution. If you are running third party applications or proprietory 
drivers, this might be a different experience.

-- 
You worry too much about your job.  Stop it.  You are not paid enough to worry.