Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date:  Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:54:04 -0700
From:  "Jeff Keller" <jeff (at mark)>
Subject:  [coba-e:14245] Re: CentOS Bluequartz alternatives
To:  coba-e (at mark)
Message-Id:  <1d4c951a0810311454g21bbe676mfacc24bda2f70144 (at mark)>
In-Reply-To:  <bc7.35297c23.363cb996 (at mark)>
References:  <bc7.35297c23.363cb996 (at mark)>
X-Mail-Count: 14245

I've used CPanel and it's exceptionally flexible but I didn't like the
interface and neither did our customers.

It simply had too many switches exposed to the customer and that resulted in
customer experimentation and an increase in support calls.  With BQ, my
customers almost never call because they can figure it out and it works as

We too use off-the-shelf configs and try to limit customization to an
absolute minimum to ensure the best chance of reliability.


On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:42 PM, <Eurowolf (at mark)> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/31/08 10:44:37 AM, reginaldvw (at mark) writes:
> So my question is very simple: can anyone compare CentOS/Bluequartz
> with other configurations and tell me if there is a substantial
> difference?
> I can not say anything really about other systems, but I have used cobalt
> since the raq1
> most of the servers are centos/ bluequartz now and we have had only one
> time that the server did not booted, after rebooting.  And we have had many
> many reboots......I must say though that we always used the hardware of
> gerald and the software adons of brian...not to promote them....the
> combination of both has been very very stable for us
> **************
> Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel
> Deals! (


14245_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)