On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 18:01 -0500, Kunal Shah wrote: > Major problem using Linux as server is the Support. As such we don't > have proper support for Linux operating system. I understand that we do > have lot of users and mailing list and people involved with Linux > community are kind enough to share experience and solutions however, > what about SLA ( Service Level Agreement)? . > > Although I know Linux is much more stable them windows, I cannot > convince my upper management to use it because of only one question. If > anything goes wrong in production, what is our SLA to resolve the issue > and get it back on board. > You seem to be confusing "Linux" with "Linux Distribution" Linux in it's most precise definition is the kernel used by many Linux Distributions. The distribution contains many other items of software. A Company who puts together a distribution (RedHat, Suse, and others) often have what you term an SLA. Check the proper sources and use the right terms and you will find what is needed. Many companies depend on in-house expertise to handle problems. Others require the SLA from the distributor. > On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 16:05 -0500, Chet Ranaweera wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:37:37 -0500, Ben Sheron <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There are a lot of people out there like that. The truth is, you can't > > > please everyone. But it seems like his main gripe is that it's easier > > > to play games on Windows than on Linux. Everything else I read seems to > > > just be a bunch of trolling. He probably just got frustrated at > > > something stupid and, having too much spare time, decided to put up a > > > Web site to take out his aggression. > > > >
