On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Jason Lim wrote: > Actually, if you're talking about the RedHat Linux distros, the last > "stable" one was Redhat Linux 9. All the FC ones are being released way > too fast and frequently to be used on a stable server. Do you really think this is unstable: (tigger pts2) $ uptime 18:57:26 up 346 days, 6:24, 95 users, load average: 0.21, 0.28, 0.25 (tigger pts2) $ rpm -q redhat-release package redhat-release is not installed (tigger pts2) $ rpm -q fedora-release fedora-release-1-3 (tigger pts2) $ > > Lets look at it this way... if you are on a desktop and using Fedora, just > keep upgrading to the next release when it comes out. They were made to be > frequently upgraded. A bit of upgrade time is acceptable on a > desktop/workstation, but it isn't acceptable on a server. FC was never > supposed to have a long lifespan for each release. > > The last version of RedHat Linux that would have been used on servers most > commonly is RH9. We still have a lot of RH9 servers running, while 7.x and > 8 has been moved to RH9 as well. > > Anyway, hope that shows support for RH9!!! Actually for me RHL9 is the least stable. My last RHL 9 box is very lightly loaded and will only stay up a max of 30 days. After that it will lock hard. It has been that way since day 1. A customer of mine OTOH, just had the jiffies wrap mid Jan. :-) We put the replacment machine into production this morning. The hardware was getting stressed out. It needed more horsepower. My point is that different people experience different results. For FL it really comes down to who is willing to continue to do the work. Regards, Tom Diehl tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx Spamtrap address mtd123@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
