I think that you are correct about this. We have started an project to evaluate using Linux here. Part of the mandate is to start as we mean to proceed. In other words, the distribution we choose now will be the one we go into production with (IF we go into production). When we go into production, the distribution vendor MUST be capable of giving us support (we will buy a support contract). But from a technical viewpoint, if I want to show off what Linux is capable of doing, I think I would be best using the most current kernel, 2.4. Since this project has a budget of $0.00, then one vendor is off the candidate list right away.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux > > n Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:07:08AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: > > > The only _real_ difference between now and before is that you don't have > a > > choice of support or not if you want to use SuSE's Linux/390, and > there's no > > way to "test drive" the distribution before deciding to buy or not. > > And both of these are potential deal-killers. Because you haven't > bought *vendor* support doesn't mean you haven't bought support--Cygwin > did well for years with *that* model. Further, in today's space, a lot > of shops looking at Linux on the S/390 have enough depth of Linux > experience that they're planning on being their own support. > > And not being able to test drive for something you're probably planning > on using to replace a substantial chunk of your infrastructure is not > pretty. > > Adam
