Re: hosers-talk: redhat versions

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Jeff Schroeder:
> Anyone know the real difference between RedHat 6.2 and 7.2?  I got 6.2 on 
> my 486 and it seems to be running fine, and I am putting 7.2 on my 
> P2.  Other than newer packages and lots of big, pretty programs are there 
> any important differences?  Since both are servers, I don't really care 
> about X or gnome or most of that other fancy stuff.  I feel it is time to 
> retire the 486 after its glorious rein of service.

Well, with 7.2 you get way newer versions of most packages, which means 
lots of bug fixes, though perhaps for bugs that never afflicted you. You 
need at least 20MB of physical RAM to install 7.2 (not run, though---if you 
install on a box with enough RAM, you could swap the HD back into the 486), 
which may keep you from easily putting it on the 486 box.

> I was thinking of going to debian, but since I've always been a redhat guy, 
> the ease of configuration (according to my learning time of pain) caused me 
> to stick with what I know.

The last time I tried Debian, I did not like their installer. That was over 
a year ago, though.
 
> I am also putting ext3 on nearly all of my filesystems because it comes 
> with the install, is reiserfs more reliable, though?
> 
> jeff

I keep hearing about corruption-causing bugs in reiserfs, but I have no 
experience with using it, so I can't compare. ext3 has been fine for me so 
far, but so was ext2.

-- 
J.