server, workstation services
in [General Linux]
|
From: mjt on 24 Jul 2010 15:33 On 24 Jul 2010 12:07:29 GMT General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate > Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to > head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's > missing from each of those editions Novell does the same thing with SLED(esktop) and SLES(erver). It's mostly about packaging, where one is focused on the "desktop" and the other as a "server" (obviously). Novell could in fact release something along the lines of "SUSE Linux Enterprise Operating System" and allow the end-user, at install time, to select "Desktop" or "Server" install type. I believe a lot has to do with support and "focus" for sysadmins and users. -- A well adjusted person is one who makes the same mistake twice without getting nervous. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: J G Miller on 24 Jul 2010 15:47 On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 14:33:51h -0500, Mjt wrote: > Novell does the same thing with SLED(esktop) and SLES(erver). It's > mostly about packaging ... And the support contract one has to buy in order to be able to get fixes/updates.
From: Robert Heller on 24 Jul 2010 16:47 At Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:33:51 -0500 mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 24 Jul 2010 12:07:29 GMT > General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The free Linuxs contain everything, however Redhat sells separate > > Workstation and Server editions of RHEL which are meant to go head to > > head with the similarly named Microsoft products. I don't know what's > > missing from each of those editions > > Novell does the same thing with SLED(esktop) and SLES(erver). > It's mostly about packaging, where one is focused on the > "desktop" and the other as a "server" (obviously). > > Novell could in fact release something along the lines of > "SUSE Linux Enterprise Operating System" and allow the > end-user, at install time, to select "Desktop" or "Server" > install type. I believe a lot has to do with support and > "focus" for sysadmins and users. I expect also, the 'server' editions (RHEL AS and ES or SLES) probably cost more than the workstation editions (RHEL AW or SLED). This is partly to 'soak' the pointy haired boss and also to give the pointy haired boss the 'warm and fuzzys'... > -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database heller(a)deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
From: General Schvantzkoph on 25 Jul 2010 00:24 > That was the original idea of Fedora, but it's not really true any more. > Fedora is a side project rather than a testing ground - it aims to be > as close to cutting-edge as possible while still being very stable. > Redhat will, of course, take the best from Fedora's experience and use > it in RHEL - but Fedora is not a testing ground for RHEL. There is a > lot that goes into RHEL that was not in Fedora (at least, not in a > standard install - maybe available in extra packages), and vice versa. Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. There are lot's of things that are in Fedora that aren't in RHEL, for example Xemacs, but I don't think that there is anything in RHEL that isn't available in Fedora. I should mention that a number of the missing packages in RHEL are available from the EPEL project but these packages are provided on the same terms as Fedora, i.e. community support only. Redhat's reason for offering a minimal set of packages in RHEL is that they have to control their support costs because that's what they are selling. It's not because the packages are unstable, you certainly couldn't accuse Xemacs of being unstable, it's just that they can't provide official support for everything in the Linux universe and still make money.
From: David Brown on 25 Jul 2010 07:27
On 25/07/2010 06:24, General Schvantzkoph wrote: > >> That was the original idea of Fedora, but it's not really true any more. >> Fedora is a side project rather than a testing ground - it aims to be >> as close to cutting-edge as possible while still being very stable. >> Redhat will, of course, take the best from Fedora's experience and use >> it in RHEL - but Fedora is not a testing ground for RHEL. There is a >> lot that goes into RHEL that was not in Fedora (at least, not in a >> standard install - maybe available in extra packages), and vice versa. > > Name something that's in RHEL that's not in Fedora. There are lot's of > things that are in Fedora that aren't in RHEL, for example Xemacs, but I > don't think that there is anything in RHEL that isn't available in > Fedora. I should mention that a number of the missing packages in RHEL > are available from the EPEL project but these packages are provided on > the same terms as Fedora, i.e. community support only. Redhat's reason > for offering a minimal set of packages in RHEL is that they have to > control their support costs because that's what they are selling. It's > not because the packages are unstable, you certainly couldn't accuse > Xemacs of being unstable, it's just that they can't provide official > support for everything in the Linux universe and still make money. > I guess you are right here - since everything (AFAIK) in RHEL is open source, it will all be available for Fedora somewhere. I think I was trying to say that there were things in RHEL that are not in the standard Fedora repositories - but as you say, they are available in other places like EPEL. Thanks for correcting me. |