James Snow wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 10:39:22AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote: > >>On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:40:32AM -0900, Andy Firman wrote: >> >>>Your comments are disturbing. I run a few 4.10 servers and am getting ready >>>for a couple new ones and would like to go with 5.3 stable. >> >>For a while 5.X was pretty iffy. A number of people who tried it at that >>time are still stuck with that impression. IMHO, its unjustified. > > > I hate to post a "me too" but I feel compelled to offer my wholehearted > agreement with this statement. > I run many servers on both 4.10 and 5.3. My 5.3 servers, without a doubt, have been as reliable as my 4.x servers. Applications they host range from firewalls/gateways to file, database, and web servers. I have a couple colleagues that have described problems getting more desktop-oriented things running properly (one example that comes to mind is VMware, though I haven't tried to use it under 5.3 myself ...). I run a 5.3 workstation and it works fine for me (*shrug*). I can definitely confirm that in the server role, however, 5.3 is up to the task, and anyone that claims otherwise needs to have a second look. I'm running a mix of IBM and Dell servers ... -- Matthew George SecureWorks Technical OperationsReceived on Tue Feb 08 2005 - 16:05:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:27 UTC