<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Les Mikesell wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1147198835.20226.109.camel@moola.futuresource.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:09, Brad Bateman wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, but that's the one that keeps you from sticking to
an older FCx version when you don't want surprises from
the full-version upgrade. Otherwise there's not much
differnce between an end-of-life FC1 and RHEL3 and
FC3/RHELEL4.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Surprises? Our company started with RH 7.2 and have moved with each
full version to RHEL4 Update 3 with no surprises.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you didn't run into some weird stuff on RH 8 I have to
think you weren't exercising it very hard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
That maybe true...we never experienced RH8. Our progression was: 7.2,
7.4, 9.0, RHEL2.1, RHEL3, RHEL4<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1147198835.20226.109.camel@moola.futuresource.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To use FC in a full production environment is IMO, suicidal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Maybe you missed the significance of my 'end-of-life' comment
on the fedoras. There is a huge update turnover at the
beginning of an FC life cycle but as you approach the end
most of the bugs are fixed and the code base is very near
what went into the corresponding RHEL release. The problem
is that once the FC version has the bugs fixed, it isn't
maintained long afterwords with backported patches for
things found later.
</pre>
</blockquote>
True enough. I was actually responding to another Dovecot thread
regarding Fedora.<br>
<br>
Brad<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>