> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote:
>> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got
>> > from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough
>> for
>> > production.
>>
>> *blink*
>>
>> Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use
>> Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5.
>>
>> Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use.
> ----
> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't
> overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image
> w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/
> CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy
> kept for just that purpose).
>
> I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I
> don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora
> for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so
> completely out-of-date.
Your mail to the cyrus-imapd list today shows that not all software on
RHEL/CentOS is "so completely out-of-date" compared to Ubuntu server LTS
(and we are talking about CentOS 5!). It really depends what you need,
sometimes RHEL/CentOS is ancient, sometimes it's Ubuntu.
Simon
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
