On 31 Oct 2008, at 15:43, Reg wrote:
> There must be people on this list who use another OS and other Control
> Panel Software such as cPanel, Plesk, DirectAdmin, etc.
Yep - I used lots of different distros - but rarely get involved in the
age old squabbles over which is 'best' - basically I reckon it's down
to what the sysadmin is used to in most cases. However...
> I would like to know if other operating systems are more stable or
> require more or less intervention than CentOS/BlueQuartz?
I haven't found CentOS/BQ to be any more, or less stable than any
other OS.
> I just rebooted 3 servers and 1 came online, the other 2 are offline
> now. I hope I'm wrong but this really makes me wonder if there isn't
> anything 'better' out there? There have been a number of small
> incidents on our servers lately and it just gets frustrating.
I'd question why you put this down to CentOS/BQ?
> So my question is very simple: can anyone compare CentOS/Bluequartz
> with other configurations and tell me if there is a substantial
> difference?
Slackware - worked fine for me, for years.
Fedora Core 4/5 - works well for me.
Ubuntu - great for personal use - has to be the easiest install.
BSD - alright, not really a replacement for CentOS, good tho'.
Suse - You either like it or love it. I just like it 'sometimes'.
My personal choice at present, and the disro I'm putting on all new
servers is...
CentOS/BQ
Why?
Because it does exactly what I want it to do, and I can leave it in
the hands of 'users' without worrying too much that they're going to
break it bad. Having had a number of Cobalt RaQs, I learned early
on the the greatest fault inbuilt to all distros is the ID-iot interface :-)