[Gllug] Redhat 9 and moving distribution: your experience

[Tethys]

Grzegorz Jaskiewicz writes:

>>From user/desktop point of view - it is very good, easy to use,
>flexible, loads of free soft. just beautifull. But i never ever will
>recomend it for servers.

It's usable for servers, but it wouldn't be my first choice (at
least for a public facnig machine -- internal servers are slightly
different). Red Hat hasn't been a good server OS for a while now
-- the base install is simply too bloated. But then again, most
distributions are the same. OpenBSD's looking like a remarkably good
server choice these days...

>While other distro developers are cooperating with package
>developers/mainteinters - redhat does not do that.

Pure FUD.

>Even more, they are
>using very often non stable/cvs snapshoted versions. Fe, kernel in rh 9
>is 2.4.21-rc3 with tons of patches (kernel it self, as i am kernel
>hacker my self - looks very good).

Take a look around. Virtually no major distribution uses a stock Linus
kernel. They nearly all apply various patches, usually on top of an -ac
base kernel.

>But on servers, you have to put much more trust in security of your
>distro. And i will recomend Debian for that.

Again, more FUD. Red Hat may have many faults. But the security of
their distribution is not one of them. They're very responsive to
security problems, more so than any other disitribution (including
Debian) in my experience.

Tet


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug