[Ham-Linux] Red hat based linux

[Bob McConnell]

Marvin Match wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2009 at 21:08, Jonathan Thawley, KC8CPW wrote:
> 
>> I'm looking at running redhat based linux. I have used redhat
>> itself back in the day. And have also used CentOS everysince tao
>> linux disappeared from production. I have tried fedora back when it
>> first came out and I wasn't impressed at all.. Has it come along
>> way since then?
>> 
> I run Fedora 10 and like it just fine. It's rather cutting edge, so 
> if you're not willing to run the upgrades fairly often it might not 
> be for you.
> 
> On my servers at work I've switched to CentOS because they're servers
>  and I really don't want to mess with them much. CentOS has long term
>  support, Fedora does not.

Of course Fedora has long term support. It's called Red Hat. Fedora is 
the development branch while Red Hat is the production branch. My 
employer pays for multiple RHEL server licenses every year. But that's 
the catch. If you want full support, long term commitment and all of 
their utilities, there is a fee. It's still better and way less 
expensive than comparable packages from Microsoft.

Fedora/Red Hat is primarily a server package. Yes, you can set up a 
desktop, but the distribution is focused more on the server features. 
There is some indication they may start expanding back into the 
workstation market, but I think that is still conjecture.

Most of my own systems are running Slackware. The exceptions are my DVR 
(MythDora) and firewall (m0n0wall/FreeBSD). But I have been using 
Slackware since it replaced SLS in '93. It has the fewest hand-holding 
features of any distribution. My wife uses Ubuntu. With GIMP, Firefox 
and Thunderbird, she is pretty well set up.

Of course you know that asking which OS to use is a lot like asking 
about religion or politics. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody has the 
answers.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP