But there are some IMHO unforgettable omissions in RHEL-WS. Like not including any program for recording CDs. Le lun 13/09/2004 à 07:01, Wolfgang Gill a écrit : > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:50:54 -0700, Adam Boettiger wrote > > I almost hate to ask this question on this list, but I've looked in > > the archives and can't find it. I've looked at this chart here: > http://www.redhat.com/software/rhelorfedora/ > > > > My question is: > > > > Other than getting the paid support, is there any real reason to buy > > Redhat Enterprise Linux WS or Redhat Linux Desktop as opposed to > > just using Fedora IN A DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT? (not a server) > > > > The comparison chart doesn't really do a great job of prompting me > > to take out my credit card. I don't get it. Is it just that the > > commercial versions are supposedly more stable and have more > > packages available for them or ... ? > > > > If this question has been asked before, just tell me so and shoot me > > the URL off-list or on-list and I'll happily RTFM, but I have looked > > and no can find. > > > > AB > > I switched from FC1 to RHEL3, mainly for stability. OK, it doesn't have the > 2.6 kernels and other fancy stuff. But at least it has been way more stable > than FC1/2 (Not one crash, FC1 used to crash at least once a week). And from > the posts that I've seen here, is that some of the new kernels tend to break > things (Alot from all the posts). At least with RHEL3 things are nice and > stable, and I don't have to stuff around to recompile/reconfigure things to > get it stable. > > Just my 2 cents worth. > > Wolf > -- > Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) >
