Linux On Servers

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:57:21 -0500
Brendan <mailinglist at endosquid.com> wrote:

> The most important thing for us (a gov't facility) is being able to quickly 
> reinstall a server and/or having it be the same layout as our many other 
> servers. Redhat has kickstart, so we use that to quickly build our servers 
> and keep them the same....I use Debian at home, but Debian is not as 
> "standard" in big business, so it was frowned upon. Not a big deal, except 
> Redhat's update tool is not nearly as quick-efficient as apt-get under 
> Debian.
> 
> My 2 cents, which is probably all it's worth.
I would agree with you. I personally prefer SuSE and SLES, and SLES is
also an industry "standard".  In the case of RHEL and SLES, the release
cycles for both are predictable, the vendor provides support services.
But, the key issue in an enterprise class OS is that more testing is
applied before things are released. 
BTW: What I mean by vendor is Red Hat and Novell, but some hardware
vendors, such as HP and IBM, also provide support for these operating
systems. But enterprise Linux systems can be expensive. A smaller
business can easily use Debian, CentOS, or some other distros.
-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.blu.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20060318/55d3880a/attachment.sig>