On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 12:49, Jeff Lasman wrote: > On Saturday 25 October 2003 00:01, Thomas Smith wrote: > > That's Red Hat's official opinion. In my opinion, Red Hat's opinion is > based on their need and desire to sell their commercial product. > > You'll find a very different opinion on the Fedora list, especially in > response to a thread I contributed to with the subject of "CNET News > Article". > The last time I checked, RedHat is not a not-for-profit corporation. While we have been effective lab rats, I suspect that few RH9 users have subscribed to upgraded support. To distribute Linux, the license requires RH to make a version available for download. Fedora seems quite consistent with the open source concept. Users get a quality distribution with RedHat tools, an update path, mailing lists, plenty of mirrors, bugzilla reporting and an active community. All FREE. Pretty good deal if you ask me. Fedora seems considerably better than Slackware or Mandrake but that's JMHO. >>I'd like to get some opinions regarding Fedora and its viability in a > production environment.<< I toyed with test 2 on a client machine. It was stable. I have no qualms, whatsoever, about installing the Fedora release version (due shortly) on our server.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
