NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Robert, et al, I was really trying hard to stay out of this, but Robert dragged my name into it . . . ;-) The recommendation for CentOS/RHEL is really based on several factors, of which ease of upgrade plays a huge role for me supporting customers and others. I recommended CentOS to Robert based on the fact he already has experience with RH-type products. If he had experience with Debian-style distributions, I would have recommended Ubuntu. For those that are non-CS or non-IT - CentOS/RHEL and Ubuntu are two distributions that seem to appeal and be easy to install and maintain. For the masses, we run build machines on CentOS 5.2 and Ubuntu 8.04.1 for package management and building. Having said that, all of our behind the scenes boxes run Gentoo Linux, OpenSolaris, and Mac OS. I cannot recommend Gentoo to anyone not already experienced with it, as it is truly a geek's distribution. But as Robert will attest to his old PDI boxes - Gentoo is very stable, very fast, and very open. I loaded Fedora once . . . and it just took me once to realize it afforded us no more benefit than Gentoo, Slackware, etc. - yet its bleeding edge model was not conducive for operational use. Stonie Robert Mullenax wrote: > I certainly have no Linux plans for our main operational boxes (unless > Sun does something stupid with Solaris x86 again) but I bought two new > Dells that will replace our old PDI NoaaPORT boxes, and based on > Stonie's recommendations I will load them with CentOS.
ldm-users archives: