I have had to as well. The philosophical differences between RH & SuSE
pretty much pushed me over to SuSE. We didn't like the language on support
in regards to the OCO modules supplied by IBM. Specifically they would not
support us on a kernel problem UNLESS the OCO modules were unlinked from
the kernel, and the problem reproduced. Well gee... unlink the modules I
need to provide network services to my customers, so that My customers
CANNOT test anything that might cause a kernel problem. That makes sense.
NOT.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Michael Lambert |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 09/19/2003 07:43 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
"At this point the differences between the two distributions are fairly
negligable."
One very important point to consider is Red Hat's reluctance to
incorporate the timer patch into their kernel. While exchanging mail
with a Red Hat saleman, I expressed concern about this ascpect of RH's
offerings. The salesman then passed that on to the engineers, who
replied that my concern was a "marketing concern" and that there were no
mainframe linux roll outs with enough virtual machines for the timer pop
to make a difference. Plain ignorant statements like that show that
mainframe linux is not a priority with RH's engineers.
BTW, I like Red Hat and wanted to stay with their product.
Unfortunately, I have to go with the vendor that appreciates the
subtleties of the platform.
--
Michael Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
