<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
In thinking through setting up the next home office server, presuming that I'm wanting to stay in the Red Hat realm, it looks like the following are choices:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
A: Centos 6.2 installed on the bare metal<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
KVM/VM of Fedora the latest<BR>
KVM/VM or VirtualBox VM of XP needed for some Windows Stuff<BR>
KVM/VM or VirtualBox VM of Windows 7 needed for some Windows Stuff<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
or<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
B: Fedora the latest installed on the bare metal<BR>
KVM/VM of Centos 6.2<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
KVM/VM or VirtualBox VM of XP needed for some Windows Stuff<BR>
KVM/VM or VirtualBox VM of Windows 7 needed for some Windows Stuff<BR>
<BR>
My understanding of the general timeline evolution of versions is:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Internal Development ==> Fedora ==> RHEL ==> Centos<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Meaning that Fedora is inherently the latest, and Centos happens after the RHEL release. Which is a double edge sword, like the release that didn't know how to drive Intel 945 video cards (just the onboard video for every Netvista desktop made for several years) when it booted, so that update booted to the black screen of death. <BR>
<BR>
I'm thinking that it makes more sense to have the most stable OS as the "real" installed OS. Otherwise I'm faced with wondering what major hunk of hardware will be broken in this Fedora update. And having another "won't boot" experience leaves us totally in the lurch. So I'm thinking A makes the most sense. What that does give up is access to any groovy new KVM or Kernel related features in the latest version of Fedora. <BR>
<BR>
Thoughts? <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Neal Rhodes<BR>
MNOP Ltd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>