On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 19:33, Ed Wilts wrote: > > There's a small point that you and David are missing. When comparing > > Win2K or WinXP you need to look at the regular version of RH. RH EW > > should be compared to MS high end server options. > > As I have mentioned already several times, EW is a workstation product. > Don't compare it to a high-end server option. EW has NO server features > - no bind, no dhcpd, or similar server options. ES has the server > features. While Win2K (and possibly XP, I don't know) has to disagree with this. I know that they have network services on paper, in reality they are not up to the needs of a real business class server. Yes, I know there's a ton of people who will be happy to tell me how wrong I am. Doesn't matter. I've seen it, up close and personal, and it doesn't hang. For real-world usage it doesn't do more than act as a print/app/file server for a small-to-mid sized LAN. Just about every desktop implementation of Win2K that I've seen are functionality comparable to WS. > > MS does not, as yet, > > have a product to compete at the lever that AS is on. > > Actually, Microsoft's Win2K Data Center Edition is probably a reasonable > comparison. It has clustering, it has general server-type features. This has, in the field, been closer to the ES product than the AS. Maybe something in the middle. > > The RH WS option > > is better compared to Solaris or other high end systems. > > Wrong again. Solaris is a server OS. So those workstations I've been working on all these years aren't really running Solaris? -- Farewell neighbor. Thank you for giving us a safe place for so many years. Fred Rodgers - 1928-2003
