>> While not the original poster, I would argue that depending on your >> use of RedHat 9 (or earlier) that RHWS is not an upgrade as the last >> time I looked at the RHWS package list it did not include Apache, >> Bind, or many of the other common server daemons. > > Includes apache, sendmail, samba, nfs. Does not include
I didn't see apache when I looked, but it may have very well been there.
> 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.
> Some things are just plain gone (mailman, some *-devel packages, and > some others), and some have been moved to the Extras channel (SQL > servers, e.g.).
> Most of the not-included ones are not really necessary for a > workstation (although I'd miss bind and caching-nameserver on my > laptop).
I personally would miss bind, caching-nameserver, dhcp, vsftpd, and mysql.
> If you want server capability and you don't want to pay RHES prices or > get RHES service (and you're not an academic), then you want Fedora > Core or Whitebox or one of the other RHEL clones.
The point was that for those who paid for RH9 service that moving to RHWS isn't truly an upgrade if you're using any of the missing features.
My servers/workstations have gone to a mixture of SuSE and Fedora. Although, I'm not sure how much longer I'll be keeping Fedora around.
