Hi Jeremy,
Thanks - sounds as if I should go for CentOS 4 then.
Andy
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:46, Gaddis, Jeremy L. wrote:
On 21 Dec 2006 18:43:51 +0000, Andy Allen <andy.allen@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks for the tip - I've looked at Centos and it looks
brilliant. Only
trouble is, I'm not sure which version to go for - CentOS 2, 3 or
4, as
I'm still not totally familiar with all the intricacies of Linux.
RedHat
9 was pretty easy to install and set up, so can I cope with CentOS?
I think you'll be happy with CentOS. A customer of mine had a number
of RH9 boxes that we moved to CentOS after Red Hat EOL'd RH9.
I don't track CentOS, so I don't know what version it's on, but
you'll
want to go with the latest release.
-j
--
Jeremy L. Gaddis, MCP, GCWN
http://www.linuxwiz.net/
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
CentOS 3.X is essentially a supported version of RH9. Based
originally on a stable version of RH9, and updated since.
CentOS 4.X has a 2.6 based kernel, and originally based on one of the
Fedora Core releases.
4 should run most programs for RH9, and has newer versions of
provided packages.
The Fedora Core versions are more bleeding edge, with much shorter
support lifetimes. If you have stuck with RH9 all these years, you
will probably be happier with a RHEL based system.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
