All I was mentioning was that 6.2 was the most stable of rhat I've used. I
personally moved away from using rhat in production connected machines years
ago, however I am only one of two unix admins at my site, and the other has
not really had decent use of debian (my preference). Both of us though
suggest 6.2 if you need stability more than you need features, and 7.3 if
you don't mind a compromise, though neither of us will use anything higher
on a production machine (we both have friends who used to work on the devel
teams at rhat, and after hearing their stories, we'll stick with a .2/3
release of the OS *grin*). We are currently running rhat 7.3 on the mail
server here only because rhat will install to software raid (something that
debian still needs to add - hopefully it will be seen in the current testing
release shortly - neither of us like the idea of paying for software fixes
for a "free" os...).
It seems that there is more development of support tools for spamassassin on
debian, though there has not been setup a method to get spamassassin current
for stable or testing, so it has less accessibility to people running debian
stable with only security.debian.org added in... *sigh* I would be willing
to provide a apt-get point for debian testing (I had to upgrade from stable
recently as the laptop which is my debian testbox has some hardware not
properly supported by stable at the moment, and I don't like compiling my
own kernels when someone else already has done a decent kernel package...).
Regards,
Cassandra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Byrnand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Cassandra Lynette Brockett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Which version of Red Hat?
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:42:24AM -0700, Cassandra Lynette Brockett
> > wrote:
> >> Personally not really liking rhat very much, I'd suggest another OS,
but
> >> for
> >> stability, so far 6.2 is the most stable of the rhat releases I've
> >> played
> >
> > 6.2 is ok if you don't mind the fact it's EOLed and you'd want to
majorly
> > upgrade stuff on there (perl is the main one for SA...)
>
> I was just gonna say :)
>
> 6.2 is ancient now, and if you're doing a new install I wouldn't suggest
> it at all. Having said that, I am running 6.2, but it has had *major*
> amounts of upgrades over the (long) time its been on there...including
> kernels (now running 2.4.20) gcc (you need at least gcc 2.95 to compile a
> lot of modern stuff) glibc, perl (5.8.0 now) and just about every daemon
> running on it... (sendmail etc)
>
> As long as you realise that a distro installation is a "starting point"
> and that just about anything can be upgraded if you try hard enough, that
> applies more to existing installs that can't afford to be down for the
> purpose of a "normal" install. Expect to compile a lot of stuff for
> yourself though, like kernels, and a later gcc, and be content with having
> to use source rpm's or source rather than binary rpms, as pretty much
> nobody is making binary rpm's for 6.2 anymore.
>
> If you're installing from scratch, definately go with 7.3 as Theo
> suggests, I've found 7.3 to be just as good. I'd also steer clear of 8 and
> 9 for now...
>
> Another reason against using 6.2 on a new install is that the installer
> is, well, buggy, and it simply will not install on some new hardware - for
> example it just totally freezes just before the copying stage on a nice
> new 2.4Ghz P4 I got recently, whereas the 7.3 installer flew through with
> no problems..... (the 6.2 installer was problematic even in its day)
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay
Get office equipment for less on eBay!
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
