[TriLUG] Which Fedora Core...

[James Brigman]

Russ - I'll offer you another vote for CentOS. I found it at the 3.x
versions (2.4 kernel) and was pleased by the stability, maturity and
bugfix activity around the release. I run it on servers as well as
laptops and get great performance in either server mode or desktop mode.

I tried other distros, even bought SuSE Pro a couple times searching for
better stability and support (timely bugfix and security patches) but
SuSE was no better. I'm about to de-install SuSE and go with Cent. 

I tried FC from versions 1-3, felt it was a nice preview of future RHEL,
but with the 2.6 kernel in RHEL/CentOS 4, didn't see any advantage or
appeal to going the FC route. 

I do have one complaint on CentOS: Evolution email client and some parts
of the OpenOffice suite just didn't work too well with 3.x and early 4.x
versions, but the CentOS bugfix activity has resolved the issues I had
with the apps.

One question for you: is your server being used for a production
business activity? (I'm guessing that's why you would be paying for a FC
install....) FC offers zero advantage there and several disadvantages,
which have already been mentioned on the list. And unless there are
portability issues being addressed by the upgrade, there should be no
cost difference in going with CentOS vs. FC.

Best of luck with the upgrade and keep talking/listening to the list -
you've come to the right place to tap into some sharp cats with
excellent experience.

JKB

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 09:17 -0500, Russ Jones wrote:
> After giving up on my multiple-crashes-a-day-old-Red-Hat-server, Ive 
> decided to foot the bill to have our server imaged with a fedora core. I 
> have the option of FC 1,2,3 or 4 - same price. 3 and 4 would take them a 
> little longer to do (2 hours instead of 30-45 minutes).
> 
> Any opinions - looking for stability primarily, as we dont do anything 
> on this server that is ultra processor intensive.
> 
> Thanks for your opinions!
> 
> Russ