there is always the whole 'if it aint broke, dont fix it'
remember that linux is just a kernel with a pile of various programs running on top of it. sometimes someone compiles them and puts them in RPMS, another person compiles them and puts them in tgz' another person maintains scripts that downloads and builds said programs on the local machine. but at the end of the day, its still just a kernel, some libraries and some applications on top. if your consultant is asking you to spend money to save money, look very carefully at what he/she is advising. RHEL isnt much easier to update than fedora, nor is it particularly more robust. if you want to take a look at the differences, head over to centos.org also, a really savy consultant would recommend a move to debian. Dean Simon wrote:
Hi all, AT the risk of starting a flamewar.....I am being advised by consultants that I need to 'upgrade' my Fedora Core servers to RH Enterprise as it is 'more robust', 'better supported', 'easier to upgrade' etc etc. We are currently running them as our webserver (informational only - no transactions), mailserver and intranet webserver (this one is a bit slow, but just needs more RAM). I am unaware of any major differences in the products that would require us to change over and start paying for what we now do for free - maintenance has been trivial, yum runs regularly via cron, downtime has been non-existent. Any thoughts? ------------------------------------ OLMC Simon Bryan IT Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] LMB 14 North Parramatta Direct Number:88381200 SwitchBoard: 96833300 fax: 98901466 mobile: 0414238002 ------------------------------------
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
