There's always a tradeoff for one distro over the other, but out of 3 FC5 servers (that had been FC4, FC3, and FC2 previously) - I've found FC5 to be quite a stable server distro. One server specifically gets beaten pretty hard (3 mpeg2 encoders running often at the same time which then turn into mythcommflag processes, plus NFS4 over gigabit,samba,NAT,httpd,mysql) - and has yet to experience its first crash. That said, one vote for 'it doesn't really matter which distro to use on a server'. As long as the distro is decent. If security stuff is an issue, then at the very least, use a distro that can upgrade components as important as sysvinit or glibc without reboot, and that has security updates easily available. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David Carlson thecubic at thecubic.net On Tue, May 16, 2006 11:11 pm, Tim Link wrote: > I am finally going to upgrade my server running Fedora Core > 1 (I know, I'm behind the times) and was thinking about > using FC5. But, as I read the posts on this list, it appears > that Debian has found it's way into the hearts of many as > far as it being a preferred distro for servers. Why is this > the case? I truly am not into distro wars but was just > wondering if Debian has a better track record than the > others, longer up-times, etc. > > If the concensus is that it just really doesn't matter at > all which distro to use on a server, that will be enough for > me. Thanks. > > -- > tim dot link at mchsi dot com > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >