RHEL WS?

[WipeOut]

Bevan C. Bennett wrote:

> WipeOut wrote:
>
>> I have just been looking at the RHEL versions and the WS basic 
>> version is not too badly priced, especially for us as a startup, but 
>> we would want to use it for our servers.. :)
>>
>> Is anyone familiar with this product?? Can it be used for web/email 
>> servers or is it restricted in some way?
>
>
> Have you read their "which to choose" pages at:
> http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/comparison/
>
> WS is, of course, short for 'Workstation', and is supposed to be for 
> desktop systems.
>
> ES (enterprise server) is geared towards small departmental servers 
> like you describe.
>
> The biggest differences according to the chart referenced above appear 
> to be:
>
> * ES includes amanda-server, arptables_jf, bind, caching-nameserver, 
> dhcp, freeradius, inews, inn, krb5-server, netdump-server, 
> openldap-servers, pxe, quagga, radvd, rarpd, redhat-config-bind, 
> redhat-config-netboot, tftp-server, tux, vsftpd, ypserv, while WS does 
> not. (both have apache).
> * ES has no 'premium edition'
> * ES does not support 64-bit systems or >8GB of memory on x86
>
> Their footnote for the first difference says:
> "Red Hat Enterprise Linux products are based on the same core kernel, 
> libraries and utilities, and also share the same major package sets. 
> However, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS is not designed for use 
> in server environments, there are some differences between family 
> members in terms of their server package sets."
>
>

I realise that "WS" is for "Workstation" but thay also mention that is 
the one to use for clusters so I figured that there must be some server 
aspect to it..

As for "ES", Yes I understand its the one to use for departmental 
servers but I am trying to cut costs, and I need 3 servers for our new 
business.. ES is just too expensive..

Looks like its back to Fedora and trying to manage the upgarde cycle.. :(

Later..