> Because they are just rebuilding and repackaging Red Hat Enterprise > Linux. Enterprises are > not interested in things like game support on their servers. > > I run CentOS 5.3 on my work desktop. I use it because it is the > closest to RHEL5 that > I can get without spending (or causing the company) to spend money. I > do have paid > support for two copies of RHEL5 as this is for our version control > repositories. Had to > go with RHEL as the company already was using Clearcase and IBM only supports > Clearcase on RHEL or SUSE.
I don't run Fedora on a server because I can't count on it like I can on an Enterprise Linux distribution. That said, just because I'm running a server or a critical workstation does not suggest that I don't care about graphics. Lack of support for 3D rendering on a critical workstation can be a major problem. For a business environment, Fedora is not even acceptable for a Workstation. Supporting the latest version of the ext filesystem on an Enterprise Linux system doesn't make sense, but video drivers should be cutting edge. If I can't run command and conquer under Wine because I don't have 3D support, then I probably can't run a 3D cad application either. Fedora is too bleeding edge and CentOS is too far behind. I don't feel comfortable with Ubuntu. Maybe it would be better if Fedora were more stable and Enterprise Linux systems were closer to it in some critical areas. I find the suggestion that a Linux system that is good for games is not an Enterprise Linux system to be disturbingly rude. Many of the things that games demand from computers are needed by many businesses. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
