Mark A. Hoover said: > >> 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. It's 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, The Whitebox versions work well. Can't see what you would need some of these on every workstation for. > and mysql. In the extras channel. > > > 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. IIRC, Red Hat also offers RHEL ES to the people with longer subscriptions, but I might just be remembering the half-price deal. -- William Hooper
