On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 02:14, David Krider wrote: > Havoc Pennington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Matt Wilson's post should help clarify: > > https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phoebe-list/2003-March/004919.html > > > > Havoc > > > > > > > > My personal take on what Havoc is saying is that it looks like it's time > that your company, which is obviously doing serious work on RedHat, make > an investment in "Enterprise" or "Advanced" server versions. I think > that's the overall message, in fact, to myself included. > > On a more personal note, I started doing some consulting work on the > side a few months ago. My "value proposition," as we all understand, was > reliability and performance. Sure, a little more cost to hire a unix guy > rather than a windows guy, but you don't have to spend another several > hundred dollars on a Microsoft OS (just $60/yr for updates), and it's > stable and worry-free. Now my advantage in my taget market just took a > hit. Now I have to either get my clients to upgrade every year (at > least) -- which is going to sound like job security to the small > companies I'm aiming for -- or I get them to spring for another OS > license that's even *MORE* than Microsoft's, even for just ES, not even > AS. Again, we in this mailing list would rather admin the Linux box > rather than the Microsoft box, but it becomes a tougher sell. Not > impossible; just tougher. > > In my mind, there's quite a gap between the $800 and 3-year-lifecycle > product and the $100 and 1-year-lifecycle product, but I can appreciate > the need for the disparity. I wish I could say that it doesn't really > matter to me, but it does. What do I tell my church? I'm covered up, the > other guy that knows Linux is covered up, but here we are needing to > upgrade. (And I don't trust upgrading. To me, that just means reinstall > and reconfigure.) Do I tell my pastor that we need to spring for another > $800 to keep things running smoothly? We're a big church, but not so big > as $800 goes unnoticed. > > (Maybe if I didn't waste time thinking out loud on this list, I'd have > the time to do all the things I need to really be doing...) > > Debian may be an alternative, but I just tried it on a spare box I had, > and I wasn't impressed. I simply don't understand what all the fuss is > about there, and this is probably the wrong place to air *that* out to > get an objective response... ;-) > > dk > > > > Debian is one of those distros that at first look might not seem so impressive, but after 3 years and not having the updates handled for you is a dream. That being said, I use Red Hat for the commercial support and updated (new) packages, but - for a box you want to stick in the back and not worry about (usually a box just doing one or two things) - Debian has always been the way to go for me.
Chris Parker -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
