[aclug-L] Re: FW: Red Hat Network ...

[gLaNDix <glandix@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 08 March 2003 02:09 pm, you wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 11:22:45AM -0600, jeffrey l koehn wrote:
> > Money makes the world go round.
> > You have a choice on how you make it and
> > where you spend it.
> > So somebody offers to sell you RedHat Linux with GPL
> > and Open Source for $250.00 or Microsoft Windows for $250.00.
> > Which will you choose?
> > Same goes for the system/systems that you purchase.
>
> I would buy the machine from the vendor with Windows and either move the
> windows license to a business office workstation or sell the license.
> Then I would install RedHat (or most likely in my case FreeBSD).  Now
> who wins in that situation?  I have essentially either made or saved
> money in the deal, Microsoft sells a license, and RedHat doesn't get
> jack.

i would by a bare-bones system and build my own or buy a "no-OS" system and 
install the (legal) copy of WinXP Pro i got from school (gotta love legally 
free windows :P) for gaming and then download mandrake (for ease of use and 
little to no admin) if it was a workstation.  if it was for a server, 
freebsd, no question.

> I have RedHat 8 installed on a laptop just to see how easy it is to use.
> I do think that it is quite easy to use, and easy to keep patched as
> well (little red flashing Icon on the "tray?" letting you know to run
> up2date).  Although, I would never consider running it as a production
> server platform.

actually, at a few of the places i've worked, they've used redhat as a server 
platform.  it's not all that bad (like you said, updates are so easy it's 
scary), but it takes quite a bit of work to get it stripped down enough that 
i would not feel like i'm creating a huge security hole.  (one of the places 
that ran redhat got hacked because of someone's lack of upgrading installed 
software and lack of turning off unused services, of which redhat has a LOT).  
freebsd does not take near the amount of time in setup/admin to get it to a 
secure enough level that one could use it as a server OS.  same with other 
distros of linux.

but i'd rather run redhat than win2k any day. :)

actually, from working at stratitec on the CPUBuilders Linux distribution we 
are slowly developing based on Red Hat (in the same way that Mandrake was 
originally just a hacked version of RH), i have seen a lot of very 
interesting things.  for one, i have never seen so many different versions of 
one logo (shadowman) in one distribution.  they're EVERYWHERE!  and since my 
job right now is to replace all those with CPUBuilders logos, it's a pain in 
the ASS to find them all! :P  but, if nothing else, it has reassured my 
belief that redhat does some f-ed up things on their system.  i rem when i 
switched to slack from RH5.1 and how nice and clean the filesystem was 
compared to how redhat has stuff scattered EVERYWHERE.  (KDE by default is 
incredibly broken because of where they put the various files.  installing 
new apps by source is a pain unless you drop the KDE RPMs and install it from 
source).  wasn't my choice to base it on redhat, but oh well, i just do what 
i'm told ;)

gLaNDix
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi