Hi Stuart, > > That's interesting how you say that, you don't have a RH8 system and you're > > making a recommendation based on that. Before FL dropped RH8 support, I ran 5 > > large RH8 production servers, never had a problem with any of them and really > > never needed to upgrade, they were humming along just fine. > > I said I didn't have a RH8 system, not that I had never had one. RH8 > has major problems with the RPM database system with RPM > transactions benchmarked to take over 4 times longer than RH7.3. > > Sure.. they'll be just fine if you leave them alone but then so > would a Slackware 2.0 machine. :) However, as soon as one attempts > to do any sort of RPM development or even update RPMs on a regular > basis (I'm in the webhosting arena and PHP, Apache and Control panel > updates are common) the RPM system goes to hell. > > *shrugs* You've switched to RH9 now? Ironic. ;) FC1 actually :). Yeah, RPM has always been an issue in RH8 but for the servers that my company was running that problem didn't play such a big role, remember also that FL released the patched RPM package manager which resolved those issues. For me, I just don't like to see "bad press" about an OS that was production quality and ran in production just fine, sure it had a couple of hiccups, just like any other OS does, but to say the least it was certainly still better than Windows production servers. Michael. -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
