SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Management here is getting serious about a support contract for linux on
the mainframe, and asked me to poll reasons why people/organizations may
have chosen one distro over the other on s/390 (specifically RedHat vs
SuSE). In the archives most of the arguments in favor
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.
John Cassidy wrote:
Another (not unimportant) point - Nuernberg is not very far from
Stuttgart which is not very far from IBM
From the peanut gallery: Afaik, redhat.de Hat is in Stuttgart...
]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments
At this point the differences between the two
distributions are fairly
negligable.
Not true. The lastest RH has on the street is the
2.4.9 kernel in RH7.1 and RH7.2. SuSE has had 2.4.19
out for almost a year. There are major improvements in
scaling between 2.4.9 and 2.4.19. So RedHat seems to
be
Disclaimer: I am a Debian guy so this is *really* not an holy war for
me.
Dans un message du 19 Sep ` 10:05, Jim Sibley icrivait :
At this point the differences between the two distributions are
fairly negligable.
Not true. The lastest RH has on the street is the 2.4.9 kernel in
RH7.1 and
Guillaume Morin wrote:
[ on the discussion about RH vs. SuSE ]
... stuff snipped...
Come on :) , it is trivial to get one package with the utils for
something as common...
I really have no preference for any for Redhat or SuSE, but you're being
a bit unfair.
Guillaume.
Actually, not unfair at
Dans un message du 19 Sep ` 12:40, Chris Cox icrivait :
Come on :) , it is trivial to get one package with the utils for
something as common...
I really have no preference for any for Redhat or SuSE, but you're
being a bit unfair.
Actually, not unfair at all.
Well, I was refering to the
Come on :) , it is trivial to get one package with
the utils for something as common...
I really have no preference for any for Redhat or
SuSE, but you're being a bit unfair.
What does fair had to do with it?
If I have to pay a chunk of money to get a
distribution, I don't expect to have to
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0500, Chris Cox wrote:
Actually, not unfair at all. Though as a Debian person you are quite used
to doing many things on your own outside of support, corporate customers
are not likely to install packages outside of the vendor's support.
Actually it is
Guillaume Morin wrote:
...
You like Debian then :-)
Guillaume.
Debian is my preferred choice on platforms not supported (well)
by RH and SuSE (e.g. Alpha).
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0500, Chris Cox wrote:
Actually, not unfair at all. Though as a Debian person you are quite used
to doing many things on your own outside of support, corporate customers
are not likely to install packages outside of the vendor's support.
PROTECTED]
HTTP : www.jdcassidy.net
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Rob van der Heij
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
John Cassidy wrote:
Another (not unimportant
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 02:56:59PM -0500, Chris Cox wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Actually it is quite the opposite. I tend to find everything that I need
already provided and supported by Debian and need to install very little
additional software.
Good for you. My experience is that
Good for you. My experience is that Debian is a bit out of
date. I'm
guessing your running Debian unstable (?). That's your
choice. Just
somewhat of a moving target.
Debian releases infrequently. Depending on your business and system
practices, this can be an advantage or a
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
..
I'd be curious to hear what you found to be missing from Debian 3.0. Most
of the complaints I hear tend to boil down to version numbers are smaller,
or misunderstandings about backported security fixes (which actually boils
down to the same issue of version numbers).
Management here is getting serious about a support contract for linux on
the mainframe, and asked me to poll reasons why people/organizations may
have chosen one distro over the other on s/390 (specifically RedHat vs
SuSE). In the archives most of the arguments in favor of redhat revolve
around:
: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Management here is getting serious about a support contract for
linux on
the mainframe, and asked me to poll reasons why
people/organizations may
have chosen one distro over the other on s/390
Message-
From: John Cassidy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Hello,
From my experience with a customer in Luxembourg, Suse were
quite prompt in answering E-Mail requests
\
/( )\
^^-^^
-Original Message-
From: John Cassidy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
Hello,
From my experience with a customer in Luxembourg, Suse were
quite prompt in answering E-Mail requests
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Any new SuSE vs RedHat arguments?
My two cents:
At this point the differences between the two distributions are
fairly
negligable. It seems that in the beginning, SuSE had the distinct
advantage.
but now it just seems like a leap frog of versions and levels.
SuSE seems
21 matches
Mail list logo
