On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Simon Matter wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 08:52 -0700, Jerry Franz wrote: >>> On 06/14/2011 08:41 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got >>>> from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough >>> for >>>> production. >>> >>> *blink* >>> >>> Absolutely not. I was talking about Ubuntu Server LTS. I don't use >>> Fedora for *anything*. I gave up on it back around FC5. >>> >>> Ubuntu Server LTS is *very* suitable for production use. >> ---- >> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. >> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't >> overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image >> w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ >> CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy >> kept for just that purpose). >> >> I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I >> don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora >> for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so >> completely out-of-date. > > Your mail to the cyrus-imapd list today shows that not all software on > RHEL/CentOS is "so completely out-of-date" compared to Ubuntu server LTS > (and we are talking about CentOS 5!). It really depends what you need, > sometimes RHEL/CentOS is ancient, sometimes it's Ubuntu. ---- indeed but apparently Debian has just recently released 2.4.x - apparently after I went looking. It wasn't that 2.4.x wasn't available for Ubuntu/Debian, it was just when I enabled the oneiric repo, it was going to replace way too much. I am sure I could have built cyrus-imapd from source but I was trying to stay with packages. ;-) Craig