SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Fedora vs RH Enterprise - consultants advising to change
- To: slug <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fedora vs RH Enterprise - consultants advising to change
- From: Julio Cesar Ody <julioody@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:30:07 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mlqucaMVveG11C4HqDz03hlN8xGg6daXvqbA0xuFxAuH4eHq75HJ71zlEpZAqIZKGtfmky+aqbVehq/SstjOoytvFbq9GQbppZn7SzBYAU7E3H5mK/OoTDCwJd6f/a6ttDp3/J0P+HOgGQnkcx7OFHrY9qzzQ1nwUa3YsYb56mE=
Better supported: maybe yeah. But in that sense, there's always
support available for Slackware, Gentoo, and other distros. I guess
the point here is that you have a company behind that support when you
buy RH, and that also means liability, which can useful for some
Easier to upgrade: As you well put, Yum will do the job, as portage
would do for gentoo and apt would do for Debian. At this point in
time, package systems are pretty evolved. There's no reason why rpm
would do a better job over any of these.
More robust: I would ask what EXACTLY do they mean with that. It's a
proper services configuration that will make a big difference. Then if
you call it mission critical, there's grsecurity (www.grsecurity.org)
and the likes. And don't rely on PCs. Go for a rackmount. Saying that
distro A is more robust than B is basically assuming that you will be
using something out of the box. In all other cases, it's the way you
handle it that will make a difference.
Julio C. Ody
http://www.newshub.com.au - countdown has begun
On 1/24/06, Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:53 +1100, Simon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > AT the risk of starting a flamewar.....I am being advised by consultants
> > that I need to 'upgrade' my Fedora Core servers to RH Enterprise as it
> > is 'more robust', 'better supported', 'easier to upgrade' etc etc. We
> > are currently running them as our webserver (informational only - no
> > transactions), mailserver and intranet webserver (this one is a bit
> > slow, but just needs more RAM).
> > I am unaware of any major differences in the products that would require
> > us to change over and start paying for what we now do for free -
> > maintenance has been trivial, yum runs regularly via cron, downtime has
> > been non-existent.
> > Any thoughts?
> Welcome to commercialised Linux ?
> Seriously, I wouldn't run Fedora in a production environment, not
> *because its bad* (its not), but because Redhat does not offer
> commercial support like they do for RHEL.
> That said, if you dont have a support contract today, then its hardly a
> problem is it ? - just make whatever commercial decision makes sense
> to you.
> [or find a different linux/a different consultant]
> GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html