Buck wrote:
I agree with you on the pricing, but when it comes time to upgarde your windows-----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.
it can get expensive.
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.
For office documents I use Gnumeric and Abiword or OpenOffice, and in most cases it works well.
Wine has gotten a lot better lately, especialy in the last 6 months. Since my last install
{wine-20030813-1rh9winehq} I have had excelent results installing FileMaker Pro
5.5 and proprietary software written for USR/3Com by Novell for SNMP management
of a Total Control Enterprise Server, without any problems.
...snip...
I would never suggest that Linux is the best solution for everyone. We use rsync to
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
backup our servers daily, to our fileserver and it archives the data to a tape drive.
Your backup solution is most likely far more exotic/expensive than ours and is not
likely compatible with linux or FreeBSD{which is what our servers are now running.}
Our backup scheme works for us, and our critical servers all have RAID.
-- Shrike-list mailing list Shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/shrike-list
