I was lumping Solaris and Free BSD into the whole "Red Hat" idea . . .while I realize they're different animals you can really lump all of them into a general category of *nix . . .given the fact that they might want to have used servers with many processors in the past then using Solaris or some other unix OS is more likely. I was just glossing over the differences between the various flavors so we didn't descend into a discussion about micro vs monolithic kernels and the best kind of *nix to run . . .because although those may be worthwhile debates they're beyond the scope of the current discussion.
I guess it's just a matter of . . .do they want to use MacOS for their servers . . .or do they want to have the most efficient and powerful server farm they can get; which may be something else. On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:21 PM, objectwerks inc wrote: > I am more likely thinking Solaris as that is what they have used in the past > (and probably still are using). Oracle has screwed it up but there are > Solaris offshoots that allow them to keep their own destiny. Apple has lots > of Solaris expertise I would think. I severely doubt they would use any sort > of Linux. If any sort of "free" OS I would expect a Solaris offshoot or > FreeBSD, with the Solaris ranking up there as my first choice. Virtualized > OS X is also a good possibility. > ----------------------------------------------- There are only three kinds of stress; your basic nuclear stress, cooking stress, and A$$hole stress. The key to their relationship is Jello. neil _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
