Re: Linux distro

Joseph S wrote:
> I just moved one of my desktops and my laptop from Fedora 6 to Unbuntu
> 7.04 because Fedora lacked hardware support that Unbuntu and my Fedora
> machines had all sorts of problems like sound dropping out and machines
> locking up. (Also the Fedora installers are terrible).
>
> My small gripes about Ubuntu are:
> 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt

Heh, see, this is what I meant by "you won't get the same answer twice".
:) Personally, one of the big selling features of Debian (and Ubuntu)
was how much better /I/ found 'apt-get'/'aptitude'/'synaptic' over
'up2date'/'yum'.

You may want to download all the popularly recommended distributions and
play around with them to see which suits your fancy.

The major distributions I would suggest (in no particular order) you
play with:
- RHEL (if you can afford it)
- CentOS
- Debian

Ubuntu is not really appropriate as a server, ditto with FC. Their focus
is too much on the desktop (not bad, just not appropriate here). SuSe is
in the dog house with the OSS community right now and that could
translate into serious support troubles down the road (when did you last
see anyone use Caldera? :) ).

I somewhat agree with Brian's argument of using enterprise-grade
distros, however I think that his particular argument is a little
strict. If you have a healthy budget, then definitely go with a
backed-distro. However if, like many of us, you want very good
reliability without a (heafty if any) price tag, versions like CentOS
and my fav. Debian are mature, tried and tested.

I would never have any qualms recommending some distros as servers that
don't have direct "commercial" suppliers. It's like PostgreSQL vs
MySQL... The formal has a very strong community that makes it viable,
where MySQL has the added benefit of direct paid support, should you
want it. (Ignoring technical differences, please).

Play around and choose what you like.

Madi