> Simon wrote: > > >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. >
I am a non-expert who knows enough to get into deep trouble, but still insists on running his own servers. My solution is to stay in close contact with LOCAL experts and pay them on need. (thank you Matt.. thank you Darren). I'm sure this is considerably cheaper and more responsive than paying RH, although I could be wrong. For the record, I use Ubuntu or Debian, but I've noticed that competent people can find their way around most distros reasonably easily. As other people have noted, there doesn't seem to be much fundamental difference in generic server software no matter what distro you use. As to being easier to upgrade, it's hard to imagine anything being easier to upgrade than Debian, and people don't complain about RH dependency hell like they used to either. I think your consultant is trying to justify his/her fee. ;-) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
