Michael Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:35:45AM +0000, Steve Mynott wrote:
> > I suspect things like SMP probably still work better.  And if I were
> > on call supporting a server I would probably still trust a Sparc
> > running Solaris over some dodgy PC desktop with Redhat stuck on it by
> > a hobbyist who has never used another UNIX.
> Can't we compare something vaguely equivalent here instead?
> I personally would have just as little faith in Solaris run by someone
> who didn't know what they were doing as I would in Redhat run by
> someone who didn't know what they were doing.

Here, here !

> How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by
> someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently,
> as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good
> with solaris?
> (And, myself, I'd recommend the PC for some situations, and the Solaris box
> for others).
> My main problem with the PC architecture is that you can do a lot by carefully
> picking a good manufacturer, but it's still fundamentally not as solid and
> consistent as sun stuff, IMHO.
> I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as
> Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience
> paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your
> money?
> Michael
> [1] OS changed on the grounds I feel that Redhat ships something more
> optimised towards desktop use, whereas I feel Debian and Solaris are both
> more suited for servers.

Would this still hold for a RedDrat system with all the X stuff and
other unncessary stuff removed ?

And if not - what else do you you think is different ?

I've a small shell script that does quite a bit of rpm -e (remove) on X
stuff / other druff that redhat installs by default - it would be nice
if they included a stripped down install class in their default install
- which left you with a basic machine ....


Reply via email to