On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Simon Matter wrote:
>> 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 completely out-of-date.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 RHEL/CentOS is "so completely out-of-date" compared to Ubuntu server LTS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.
----
indeed but apparently Debian has just recently released 2.4.x - apparently after I went looking. It wasn't that 2.4.x wasn't available for Ubuntu/Debian, it was just when I enabled the oneiric repo, it was going to replace way too much. I am sure I could have built cyrus-imapd from source but I was trying to stay with packages.
;-)
Craig
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
