On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 23:30 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Ed Greshko wrote: > > >>> I'm pretty much OK with your summary...except for the last paragraph. I > >>> don't feel the intention/target of the Fedora Project was/is > >>> "Deployment in > >>> a large enterprise". If that is one of the intentions, I would like > >>> to know > >>> where it is stated. > >> It isn't, hence the necessity for Ubuntu or other distribution that is > >> intended to be usable. I just think the fedora developers could do it > >> better and keep the RH style administration so more people would be > >> potential customers for RHEL on their servers. > > > > I doubt customers of RHEL use Fedora as their decision making criteria. I > > know none of projects I've been involved with at large enterprises have done > > so. > > Did a consultant or in-house employee make the decision? I deploy the > servers in our company, and the time it would take to learn the details > of administration on a different distribution is very much a factor. > > > Along that line, that has also been the case for other consultants I've > > talked with. I don't feel my experience is unique. > > Consultants don't mind having more billable hours... And they probably > prefer that the companies paying them have no in-house expertise. > > > FWIW, I wouldn't deploy Ubuntu at a large enterprise either..... > > What would you deploy that has firefox 2.x OpenOffice 2.2, and other > current desktop applications? ---- some would think that given the relatively recent releases of Firefox 2.x and OpenOffice.org 2.2.x that you are willing to overlook the notion of 'stable' simply for features but are not willing to apply that elsewhere. Craig
