Les Mikesell wrote: > Ed Greshko wrote: >> Les Mikesell wrote: >> >> I'll preface what I am going to say below by repeating what I've already >> said which I thought was quite simple. >> >> "When making a choice to use RHEL the client *did not* first >> experiment with >> or try out Fedora." Period, end of story. > > OK, then I guess you don't have experience with the situation I am > trying to describe. No. It seems that the people I work with are much more experienced and or informed. >>> 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. >> >> The customer always makes the decision. >> >>>> 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. >> >> So, your are comparing Consultants with Lawyers? And, no, a good >> consultant >> prefers that the company *does* have in house experience. It makes >> meeting >> much more productive. > > OK, if you are different from lawyers you should be able to speculate > here... _IF_ your client had experience and expertise with fedora, > perhaps going back to the RH versions before the fedora split, would you > take into account the fact that using RHEL on the server side would take > no extra training on either the admin or operators parts? But maybe > places like that don't call consultants. That is a mighty big *IF* you have there. As I already said, the type of clients I work with know not to compare/use Fedora as a basis for their decisions. I'm sorry to say that is *fact*. If you can't deal with that, I can't help you. > >>>> 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? >> >> I have clients using RHELv4 along with firefox 2.x and OpenOffice 2.2. > > Feel free to agree with me that such a combination is useful. > >> Just >> because RHELv4 doesn't come with those application versions doesn't >> mean one >> can't create/maintain a local repository and update efficiently. We are >> talking about "large enterprises" with a dedicated IT staff, right? > > That's sort of like saying that if you have the resources you could > assemble a fleet of custom built cars from parts and maintain them > yourself instead of driving standard models. Yes it could be done. It's > just not a good idea, and not something most places should have to do. > Especially with free software where it should only have to be done once > and everyone should be able to copy it. ???? It is done only once...by the IT staff. As a matter of fact, in the places that I've done work each desktop is not updated by using RHN directly. They use the Red Hat Satellite Server to deploy and update and control software distribution. And the updates are not placed on the satellite server until vetted by the IT department. It is also done via automated processes since not everyone should have to know how/when to update their systems. That is not their primary function in life. It seems you think everyone should be a sysadmin? -- Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
