----- Original Message ----- From: WipeOut Sent: 1/20/2004 2:25:43 PM To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: RHEL WS? > 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.. I agree. This is very confusing. We've been through this before. I asked, personally, about the products Red Hat is selling at the store. Yes, Red Hat is selling boxed-set products at the store for $100. It's called Pro Workstation or something like that. But no one can give me a clear idea on whether these include errata upgrades, for how long, etc. And then we get this garbage about "this isn't meant to be a server", etc. Strange strange stuff. Reminds me of when I quit using Microsoft products. It was when they developed a pretty decent codebase in NT, but decided arbitrarily that one was a "server" and one was a "workstation". The only difference between the two (other than price) was essentially that the workstation was a crippled version of the server. That's when I said enough of that. Same with Red Hat. They're bent on pushing RHEL Server, so the message is that you can't use anything but that as a server. Or that you "shouldn't" or whatever. Either way it's a confusing mess and thus instead of getting my $100 I use Fedora. Preston
