before i start, $380 for RHEL is like getting a full time sysadmin that'll
take care of your updates for a year. IT'S CHEAPER THAN HIRING SOMEONE
FOR $70K.
Mike Bartman said:
> Who says?
a helluva lotta people.
> "Server" is not synonymous with "rack-mounted system". Those are a
> subset of "servers". "Server" is a *role*, not a machine type, or OS,
> or anything else hardware or software related. Same with "client".
> Most machines are both at one time or another, and may be both
> simultaneously (just because I'm editing a program source file on the
> system doesn't mean it isn't also receiving mail for me). Roles shift
> all the time on many machines.
no, a server doesn't have to be rack mounted. but a server is generally a
system that's dedicated to performing services for many other computers.
what you're describing in your email is a workstation that also does
services.
with real servers, you want as little complexity as possible. X11,
GNOME/KDE, Mozilla... all that GUI stuff is another layer of complexity
that you don't want... as well as a waste of resources on a server. this
is especially important on production level servers.
you're running services on your workstation. any self respecting sysadmin
would NEVER allow a server be doubled as a workstation ... you want to
keep it as accident-prone-less as possible.
> My main Linux system here (currently Red Hat 7.2) is *mostly* a
> server...it serves lots of things to the other machines here (running
> several different OSs). Time, mail, DNS services, local web pages,
> etc.. It's also my main system for learning about LInux...so when I'm
> doing that, it's a
> workstation too. There's only one user, me, so there's no problem with
> an AMD 1900+ handling the load of both server and workstation processing
> simultaneously...but both sorts of software need to be loaded and
> accessible.
again, only one user. that's a workstation. now, you would never use a
real server to learn linux, you'd use a test bed server or your own
workstation.
>>Right now, I would recommend against fc1 for servers, due simply to
>> it's release cycle. Granted, it may be quite easy to yum upgrade to
>> fc2, or there may develop a large enough community to keep updating the
>> rpms, but as of now, that all seems vaporous, and definitely not
>> something to base a server off of. The enterprise version of redhat is
>> a good idea in this case.
>
> Not unless money is no object for you...and only when your "server" is
> used only in that role, and no others. For those of us with small
> offices, it's too expensive, overkill and poorly adapted to the
> requirements. Red Hat doesn't *have* a product for small offices
> anymore. Just corporate giants with specialized machines for each role.
it's more along the lines of "unless your data is of no object to you"...
does your server being down mean that you're going to loose money or
productivity? are people going to get pissed off at you? fedora core is
not a server platform, it's a test platform. your $380 for a single box
is peanuts in the business world, but i'd never spend that on a server in
my home when it's not a money or productivity thing.
you speak like a student, not a professional. and yes, it has a product
for small offices, it's called RHEL. and there's also redhat workstation
for $80 a seat.
> FC1 has the right software, or so it appears at this point in my
> investigations, but if I'll have to upgrade to FC2 to keep getting fixes
> for security holes, perhaps it isn't the right way to go either. I
> don't have the spare time to make a career out of upgrading my software
> (other than minor fixes for security holes as needed, and the less often
> that is needed, the better). I don't need to be running the "latest and
> greatest" for features...what I have already has all the features I need
> at the moment.
time = money in business. it's cheaper for them to pay 380 for RHEL, they
don't have the time to do that. they need to do things that make money.
their careers ARE involved with their dedicated server.
> It's looking like Red Hat is interested only in huge corporations, and
> Fedora is for those who want to mess with the systems constantly as a
> hobby. I'm looking for something like Red Hat 7.2...but with security
> patches available as needed. Something that I don't have to upgrade
> constantly, that works reliably, and that has enough support to keep it
> working safely. It was starting to look like FC1 would fill that bill,
> so I've gotten it, installed it, and am looking it over, but if support
> for keeping it secure is going to go away, and require an upgrade to a
> new version every few months, it's not going to cut it either.
they want to make money?! FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED CORPORATE BASTARDS! this
argument about "wah, i don't want to spend $380 for support, wah" is so
tiring, either you need it or you don't. compile your upgrades and
patches or upgrade your system. use a free distribution on your
workstation with services.
if no one needed the RHEL, they'd go out of business pretty damned quickly.
-d
+( duncan brown : duncanbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )+
+( linux "just works" : www.linuxadvocate.net )+
--------------------------------------------------
Understatement of the century:
"Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing
a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be
big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT
clones"
- Linus Torvalds, August 1991
--------------------------------------------------
