On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 13:32 +0800, John Summerfied wrote:
I'd not use FC on a server.
I maintain several machines, some running Debian, a couple run FC3.
I maintain the software remotely - where remotely varies from across the
LAN to via dialup Internet.
apt-get works well and I run it nightly in a cron job to download from a
local mirror. It's easy to configure apt-get to use a particular mirror,
and the initial configuration is done at install time.
I've not discovered a good way to make yum download "hands off." I
_could_ make it download and install, but that's not my style. I like to
control when updates go in.
By default, yum uses a selection of mirrors in convenient locations such
as .fi. .il and goodness knows where else. I'm in Australia, and there
are few locations further away than those.
It's very easy to make yum use a local mirror. I do this both at home at
at work. Just point each repo at your local mirror using the "baseurl"
directive in your yum repository configuration instead of using the
default mirrorlist.
I see an enormous volume of updates for FC. I've not checked on
what
they fix, but I suspect they're mostly not security-related.
I think most are usability improvements for the desktop, and probably
not really needed on servers.
I'd not like such a volatile selection of software on my server,
I'd be
perpetually worried that something will break, and if a server breaks
then the whole enterprise (school in my case) is affected.
Yes, for example there was a recent util-linux update that
"broke" (though there was a workaround that could be used) client-side
NFS mounts to older servers, though an updated update was released the
day after.
If you want a Red Hat-based solution then look at the free download
versions of RH's Enterprise Linux. I have not used one, but I might. I
have been downloading the source updates, and they're relatively few as
compared with FC.
Agreed. Centos looks a good bet.
Paul.
--
Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org>