-----Original Message----- From: shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Guy Fraser Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:01 PM To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: The end of RHL for private use? [was: Fedora vs. RHL] snip > Yup, thats right. If there is software that you have to run and it is not available as native linux software, oyu need an alternative. Wine has fit the bill for all the windows apps I have needed, I just install the app from the CD and it works pretty much the same as it would under windows. Even printing works now, the only thing that doesn't seem to work is help, but who uses that anyway ;^) > While I would consider trying it, I couldn't bet the company profits that their installation will work as needed in Wine. We spent hours setting it up to work on Windows properly. Besides, the company has licenses for windows on all their computers so they wouldn't save any money. I have serious problems competing in computer sales where large OEMs get Windows for $35 and I have to pay $200. I haven't checked it out lately, but Wine was sort of working on Quicken, my accounting software of choice and I am not sure about the MS office products. While I don't need it in Quicken, I do often use the help in the Office apps. > By the way buck, RHL 9 is just as easy if not easier to install than XP. On a fresh install now XP has to be restarted at least 5 times to apply all the updates, RHL 9 only needs one to start using the current kernel ;^) > Right you are on the re-boots, but it still takes at least an hour for me to install Linux. As for pre-XP releases, I can install them in less than 10 minutes as I have a special configuration setup for that. > We'll just have to see if Fedora will be too painful due to constant upgrading. > The constant updating doesn't bother me. It's problems after the updates cease that worries me. If a version is stable enough without too serious of exploit holes, it can probably remain on a system at least a year. That's long enough to justify letting a customer buy it. Since I am dealing primarily looking at Linux for server software, I want the machine to be maintenance free once all the updates are done. My critical server has 5 levels of backup incase of failure. Restore time after my arrival on-site: A) 5 minutes, B) 10 minutes, C) 15 minutes, D) 45 minutes and E) 4 - 6 hours. I am working on a 6th procedure that will be in the 15 - 20 minute range. These procedures provide restoration of the system and data pending loss of data, loss of one drive, two drives, the network stolen or the network and the reserve workstations stolen. In case of fire, they'll be networked and restored before they get moved into their new location. Data loss will be limited to the night before in most cases, but no more than a week in the worst case scenario. I don't know if Linux lends itself to the same style I use for backing up the Windose machine. If it doesn't I'll have to create all new procedures. Either way, I won't want to be changing O/S in the server unless it is absolutely essential. (I think I went off on a tangent). I know that Fedora doesn't offer what had attracted me to Red Hat in the first place, the question is, will another brand be any better? Buck -- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
