[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: Need Distro Recommendation, Please

[Zac Brown]

You have a valid point... but if you do diff checks on the setups
between a CentOS/WhiteBox/TaoLinux setup and an RHEL4 setup, you'll find
probably no differences except those that are negligible. The CentOS
devs have a couple of RHEL developers working with them as well so they
know whats going on. To add to that the WhiteBox and TaoLinux devs work
with the CentOS in their respective OS's. I'd argue that they're plenty
well tested. But I do respect your opinion by all means :). Don't take
the aforementioned argument as shrapnel so much as just a feather
falling.

On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 16:03 -0500, Tom Adelstein wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 15:24 -0500, Zac Brown wrote:
> > I would consider any distro based off of RHEL to be well tested (CentOS,
> > cAos, Tao Linux, Whitebox) and I'd probably say thats about it as far as
> > _well tested_ goes IMHO.
> 
> Hello,
> Don't take this as a shot or a flame or anything like that. When you say
> well tested, I think of Quality Assurance -- testing the product
> specifications created at the beginning of the project against the
> finished product. In strictly trade terms that's what people mean when
> they say "well tested".
> 
> In an open source context, the testing is done in the field. Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux source rpms are tested in the QA sense - but the
> distributions created from the (other than RHEL) source rpms may not
> work for hundreds of reasons including init scripts, configuration
> files, booting, kernel configurations, etc.
> 
> Among the major "well tested" distributions, Debian is the only free
> well tested distribution. That's partly why their stable releases are on
> 18 month to two years release cycles and people gripe because they seem
> so far behind.
> 
> I don't want to seem argumentative, but CentOS, Whitebox, etc. have well
> tested source rpms but are not well tested distributions.
> 
> <covers his head and waits for the shrapnel to stop falling>
> 
> Tom 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 13:40 -0500, tr_data1 wrote:
> > > > There are just too many *well-tested* distros out there to risk 
> > > > hardware damage from an errant kernel configuration...
> > > 
> > > OK then. What distros (including version#) do you consider "well-tested"?
> > > I'm truly interested in the info, not just objecting to what you said.
> > > =TR=
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
-- 
Zac Brown <zbrown at physika.org>