Would you consider Fedora Core a Server OS?

Hate

Hate

Hate

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,175
Location
Sussex
... I wouldn't

Yet after installing 6.06LTS (Ubuntu) on all our servers internally at work, our boss has gone and set up a new external server... running fedora core 5 :(

The reason I chose Ubuntu is that it has 5 years support and RPMs suck :p

Fedora Core 5 will be dropped into legacy in probably under a year :(
 
I've used FC with no problems but now I use CentOS....I'm not really too bothered, but CentOS seems good enough and works reliably :)
 
what got me is that i've used debian systems since ever, all our servers are ubuntu so the boss goes and gets fedora...

i'm meant to be the one administering them :p
 
I wouldn't consider FC, nor Ubuntu Server distro's (regardless of their 'minimal' flavors) :o

Slackware, Debian or Gentoo TBHIMOLOL.

/hardcore
 
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Debian stable here on my servers, would not touch an RPM based distro ever.
 
Red Hat enterprise has always been our standard for servers, given what i've seen of fedora though, i'd have no problem using it as a server os properly configured...
 
Many companies specifically request Fedora because RedHat, as fruity as it is, unfortunately became industry standard and Fedora is free. It has everything to do with revolving IT staff and datacentre operators being able to quickly find scripts and init files in pre-defined in documents directories and be capable of installing software or upgrading boxes without reading manuals on what exactly emerge or apt is and nothing to do with security or quality of the distro in question.

I for one always despised RedHat and consider Fedora one of the lamest, notoriously bad distros out there, but have to live with it as server platform and accept the fact that Redhat way is standardised way of doing things just like other people have to live with MS Exchange on windows servers forced on them by company policy.
 
yeah, but its the reverse for me - i don't know my way around fedora and do know my way around debian / ubuntu :|
 
actually much of the reason for choosing red hat enterprise for us was the knowledge that there is support we can depend on should we need. when we made the choice nothing else could offer that.

obviously solaris is far better and a must for core services (name servers etc..)

v0n, I'm not sure what the relevence of the exchange comment is, I've yet to find anything of comparable power, features and scalability for what it does
 
bigredshark said:
obviously solaris is far better and a must for core services (name servers etc..)

v0n, I'm not sure what the relevence of the exchange comment is, I've yet to find anything of comparable power, features and scalability for what it does
Click to expand...

Well, I can't really argue with those two sentences.

I simply wouldn't know where to begin.

But this is pretty much what I meant by "forced by company policy" - someone up the ladder drawing wrong conclusions and making most questionable decisions and force everyone to live and deal with that kind of software every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom