fedora 7

[kristian.hermansen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org (Kristian Hermansen)]

On 6/3/07, David Kramer <david-8uUts6sDVDvs2Lz0fTdYFQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The thing that I like about Fedora (and I've only recently switched from
> SUSE (pronounced "Sleeping With The Devil")) is that it has a good mix
> of stuff for both server and desktop.  I don't want to have to remember
> a different set of admin tools and file locations for my server and my
> laptop.  We also use RHEL and Centos at work, which helps  ;)

If you know the standard command line admin tools, you will be able to
sit down at almost any Linux distro and do what you need to do...no
GUIs involved.

> Every objective person I've asked has said that Ubuntu is not ideal for
> a complex server.  I'm not knocking it as a desktop distro.  But we all
> have different needs.

I have run many Linux distros as servers.  Saying Ubuntu is not ideal
for a "complex server" is just about the same as saying Debian is not
ideal either.  However, I would like to know exactly what these
objective people have claimed to be the core reasons why.  Maybe they
looked at the Desktop version of Ubuntu, and made their analysis that
way?

The Ubuntu Server version is actually quite powerful, secure, and
slim.  Maybe they don't like the fact that SELinux is not installed?
I don't know, but I would like to hear their reasoning.  I have used
it many situations and have no qualms about using it further.  As
always, YMMV.  Don't take other people's word as gospel.  Use it
yourself and find out why.  Ask questions here when you run into
trouble.  Don't ever blindly believe something someone else says...
-- 
Kristian Hermansen

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.