User Linux
Vincent
pros-n-cons at bak.rr.com
Mon Feb 9 03:29:13 UTC 2004
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:29:23 -0600
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz at simpaticus.com> wrote:
> At 20:39 2/7/2004, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> >On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:26, James Drabb wrote:
> >
> > > I know it sounds like I am coming down on Red Hat, though I do want to
> > > state that I have used RH Linux for a long time now and find it the best
> > > Linux distro to use. I just am not happy how RH dumped the home user
> > > and the small business user.
> >
> > It really must be me, I guess. I seem to be the only one who doesn't
> >see this whole thing as RH "dumping" the home or small business user. I
> >guess I've been at this to long or something.
>
> Joe: No, I have come to believe that most of us out here have a clue.
> However, there are still hundreds or thousands of people who Just Don't Get
> It [tm]. They will or they won't, but you'll have a hard time convincing them.
>
> > > Now What IT manager is going to ever choose to use Fedora. What small
> > > business is ever going to choose to use Fedora with statements like the
> > > above. To me it sounds like RHEL is secure and stable while Fedora is
> > > not.
>
> James: To me it sounds like Fedora has software freedom, costs $0.00, and
> its security and stability will, over the long haul, be determined by the
> community of developers, programmers, and users involved with it. That can
> go well or poorly, but it DOES NOT automatically imply "poorly." That same
> RHEL you suggest as secure and stable was built mostly by the same
> community, and most of the packages in Fedora are the very same packages in
> RHEL... they are just newer versions.
>
> Fedora moves forward more quickly than RHEL, thus of course over the long
> haul an RHEL version with 24 months of use behind it will be more stable
> than a current/recent Fedora version. However: telling me that a McLaren F1
> Formular racecar is faster than a BMW M5, while true, will not convince me
> that the M5 is slow. You are talking differential or marginal
> security/stability, not absolute.
>
> Hence the argument falls completely apart on a philosophical basis, and can
> be discarded.
>
> On a practical level, I have now had a couple of Fedora boxes running stock
> installs (and updates) as firewall/gateway machines for small businesses. I
> performed exactly the same lock-down measures which I did on RHL-9 and
> which I would need to perform on RHEL-3. Exactly the same. Both boxen have
> now been online 24/7 for 30 days with no crashes, no bugs, no problems, and
> no cracks. While this may not be a perfect test, no Windows computer I ever
> met could say the same.
>
> Hence your argument can further be shown to have no practical merits.
>
> > > Also, RH no longer has a Linux available that is cost effective compared
> > > to MS. You can get MS Windows XP home for $99, while Red Hat
> > > Professional Workstation is around $110.
>
> Is that XP Home a full version of the OS, or an upgrade? Also note that I
> just bought an RHPW box for $50 or so. Get your facts straight.
wow I just noticed that. from COMPusa its $109.99 and from staples its $49.94
talk about a price break. Thanks for getting me to shop =) I'm going to do this.
> --
> Rodolfo J. Paiz
> rpaiz at simpaticus.com
> http://www.simpaticus.com
>
>
> --
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list