Re: RHL 9 - concerns

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 02:14, David Krider wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Matt Wilson's post should help clarify:
> >  https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phoebe-list/2003-March/004919.html
> > 
> > Havoc
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> My personal take on what Havoc is saying is that it looks like it's time 
> that your company, which is obviously doing serious work on RedHat, make 
> an investment in "Enterprise" or "Advanced" server versions. I think 
> that's the overall message, in fact, to myself included.
> 
> On a more personal note, I started doing some consulting work on the 
> side a few months ago. My "value proposition," as we all understand, was 
> reliability and performance. Sure, a little more cost to hire a unix guy 
> rather than a windows guy, but you don't have to spend another several 
> hundred dollars on a Microsoft OS (just $60/yr for updates), and it's 
> stable and worry-free. Now my advantage in my taget market just took a 
> hit. Now I have to either get my clients to upgrade every year (at 
> least) -- which is going to sound like job security to the small 
> companies I'm aiming for -- or I get them to spring for another OS 
> license that's even *MORE* than Microsoft's, even for just ES, not even 
> AS. Again, we in this mailing list would rather admin the Linux box 
> rather than the Microsoft box, but it becomes a tougher sell. Not 
> impossible; just tougher.
> 
> In my mind, there's quite a gap between the $800 and 3-year-lifecycle 
> product and the $100 and 1-year-lifecycle product, but I can appreciate 
> the need for the disparity. I wish I could say that it doesn't really 
> matter to me, but it does. What do I tell my church? I'm covered up, the 
> other guy that knows Linux is covered up, but here we are needing to 
> upgrade. (And I don't trust upgrading. To me, that just means reinstall 
> and reconfigure.) Do I tell my pastor that we need to spring for another 
> $800 to keep things running smoothly? We're a big church, but not so big 
> as $800 goes unnoticed.
> 
> (Maybe if I didn't waste time thinking out loud on this list, I'd have 
> the time to do all the things I need to really be doing...)
> 
> Debian may be an alternative, but I just tried it on a spare box I had, 
> and I wasn't impressed. I simply don't understand what all the fuss is 
> about there, and this is probably the wrong place to air *that* out to 
> get an objective response... ;-)
> 
> dk
> 
> 
> 
> 
Debian is one of those distros that at first look might not seem so
impressive, but after 3 years and not having the updates handled for you
is a dream.  That being said, I use Red Hat for the commercial support
and updated (new) packages, but - for a box you want to stick in the
back and not worry about (usually a box just doing one or two things) -
Debian has always been the way to go for me.

Chris Parker



-- 
Phoebe-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list