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

[Tom Adelstein]

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