14 Nov
2006
14 Nov
'06
10:55 p.m.
Brad Fuller wrote:
Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:
Now I remember, it's an enterprise version based on RHEL. However, I
don't know how much of Fedora is in RHEL. RHEL was started years before
Fedora. I imagine there is some, but doesn't Redhat pick and choose what
to put in. Besides, it's built for the enterprise, and stability as you
say.
As their site says:
CentOS-4 is a freely distributable OS built from the source at:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS
To me, that sounds like it would be a couple of steps back from FC.
What do other use and are you happy with the upgrades?
On the laptop, I started with SimplyMEPIS, a Debian-based distribution,
pointed the repository list at debian.org, and just update from there.
Sometimes upgrades have been "challenging" - such as the times that Xorg
updates broke X, or KDE updates broke something. Considering the age of
SimplyMEPIS, I don't blame Xorg or KDE for such challenges.
On the server box, I started with Kanotix, pointed the repository list
at Debian, and just update from there. It has also had "challenges",
mostly due to partial updates.
Both of my systems run tight on disk space, so I suspect that most any
distro would find updates challenging on them.
My wife's laptop runs an old distro, name of which I've forgotten,
running Sarge. All she ever gets on updates is security updates. Hers
has been challenge free as far as updates go. She has plenty of disk
space available.
I'm planning to check out the Debian Music Distribution (DeMuDi) from
http://www.agnula.org to see how that goes.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
What's the difference? Couldn't I just keep FC5 and not go to FC6, for
example. Or, does CentOS have an easy upgrade path?
CentOS is simply RHEL (which is based on Fedora), and is supported for longer
than FC, but by the CentOS developers and contributors.