Here's my situation:

Two days ago my HDD that I had RH9 installed on developed bad sectors. I have since purchased a new drive and intend on keeping it a Linux box. When I originnally installed RH9 I considered Fedora C1 since many people said it was faster, however it seemed that most the posts in the Fedora vs RH thread leaned toward RH9...but now core 2 is available and I am considering installing it instead of RH9. Is this a good idea?

Also, I have made sure that the majority of support tutorials I used for some of my RH9 software installs also have Fedora tutorials...but alas, all of the Fedora tutorials are for Core 1. So maybe someone knows if the file and directory structure between C1 and C2 are the same?

I intend on using MySQL, Apache, Q-Mail, SSH, and FTP on the server, I assume that there are no issues with running such services on Core 2...

The system is an AMD 2400+ with 256mb ram, an ATI All-In-Wonder 4mb video card, onboard sound, Samsung CD-RW, and 40g HDD.

I appriciate any opinions/sugestions!

Thanks in Advance,
TankerKevo

Hello!

I think you should use FC2. There is no more support for RH. Everything is new and you'll be able to run MySQL, Apache, Q-Mail, SSH, and FTP.

Cheers, Boby

since you will do a fresh install, you may consider FC2 because it is faster than RH9.

Thanks for the advice! I'm on disc 2 as we speak...errr type!

Yup use Core 2. After a kernel compile i have fixed everything that was wrong with it (nvidia driver based), and even the default 2.6 kernel is much faster than FC1's 2.4.

personly if i was going to set up a web server or something "mision critical" i would go with redhat9, it seems to be a proven o/s with fiew majo bugs
i am useing fedora core 2 and i would say as a desktop you canot go past it

also most of your installation tutorials should be simila

For a production server or a machine that will host critical data, I'd stick with RH9.

Since there's no more up2date support, install apt ( LINK ) & check to see if there are new available packages every now & then.

Well, I've been running Core 2. I've got pretty much everything setup and being used except my database...MySQL. I must say that the VSFTP that was installed was either installed incorrectly or it is a bad version. I can't seem to get it running smoothly, but I'm still working on it. Other than that it seems great!

Also, I do believe that the GUI is much quicker than 9. Although, I must admit I probably won't use the GUI much, if at all, but it's still nice to have it.

what gui are you useing?

vsftpd off yum installed and worked fine right off the bat, try that

gnome

i personly thaught that gnome was slower
i also thaught that kde has goten faster