How about Slashdot and Freshmeat? :)
--
Burton Windle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux: the "grim reaper of innocent orphaned children."
from /usr/src/linux/init/main.c:1384
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Brad wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:26:02 -0600
> From: Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: servers running debian
> Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:26:29 -0800
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:15:55AM -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any servers (web hosts or the like) that run Debian?
> > I noticed most run RedHat, but I am not sure why exactly. Any
> > explanation?
>
> I know of one, although it was running RedHat until i took on the job.
> Personally, i find Debian _much_ easier to keep up-to-date. The day
> something new is released for potato, a cronjob emails me and asks me to
> look into installing it. With the RedHat installation, it had been
> running 5.2 forever because no one could be bothered to seek out the
> updates...
>
>
> I've also worked with some RedHat servers, in that case the boss picked
> RedHat and wanted every Linux box in the department running that so
> they'd all be the same (which lead at one point to ALL our boxen being
> listed in ORBS...).
>
> Generally, i'd guess that whoever is there when the first move is made
> to Linux gets to pick the distro, and inertia keeps that from being
> changed too often. So if the admin knows RedHat better, or the bosses
> choose RedHat for whatever reason (remember, to most suits
> Linux==RedHat), then that's how it'll be. And if a new admin is coming
> into the field, and finds that the servers run RedHat, that's what he'll
> learn and then recommend at his next job.
>
>
>
