Watch it: Multiple DNS implementationsvulnerableto cachepoisoning

[Peter Farrow]

Anthony Cartmell wrote:
>> Another good example of why Fedora is not the best choice for a 
>> server if it
>> is going to be expected to operate more than 18 months
>
> ...unless you're happy to upgrade on a roughly annual basis to benefit 
> from more up-to-date stable versions of the main packages, such as 
> perl, apache, MySQL, PHP, etc.
> (see problems installing recent MainScanner versions on machines with 
> old perl installations earlier)
>
> We've been here before - Fedora is an excellent server OS for people 
> like me, running web servers requiring up-to-date packages. It may not 
> be if your situation means upgrading OS versions is expensive and you 
> have no need for recent software packages installed automatically.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Anthony

I agree, having some 200 machines "under my wing" means I would be 
upgrading one almost everyworking day to stay in the picture under this 
scenario.
As much as I like my work, I don't like it that much  ;-)


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Inexcom system Scanner,
and is believed to be clean.
Advanced heuristic mail scanning server [-].
http://www.inexcom.co.uk