[Gllug] VACANCY: Linux Technical Consultant / Architect requi red

[Xander D Harkness]

Mark Lowes wrote:

>On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 08:51, robin.c.smith at bt.com wrote:
>  
>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tethys [mailto:tet at accucard.com]
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>The part of this that troubles me is that companies seem to be heading
>>>>towards using Red Hat and SuSE only - they could save a fortune if they
>>>>used Debian!
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I'm failing to see how. The average cost for all three is typically
>>>zero. A commercial company may be wise to take out a support contract,
>>>which is easier to find for RH and SuSE than it is for Debian, but
>>>that's as far as it goes. Where do you think the savings would come
>>>from?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>To patch Debian for the latest security patches you just type:- apt-get
>>dist-upgrade.
>>    
>>
>
>Assuming you have the right lines in sources.list ;)
>
>However with the likes of up2date this edge isn't that significant.
>
I would agree; I would however like to see Red Hat relese the server 
side of this.  I know that they make money from RHN and every company I 
install servers in I recommend that they subscribe.  $60 a year for 
computer security is cheap to a company and it is an easier way to get 
cash out of companies back into the pockets of the developers.  

I have tried recommending donations to the FSF, to gnome, Kernel hackers 
or Samba and it never happens.  Get a RHN sub and it is at least some 
form of revenue strem for Linux.

Back to the release of the server side of RHN though:  I would like to 
see it so that people like me or small organisations can set up our own 
mirrors and add our own packages to they - very much like the Debian system.

>
>  
>
>>I gave up using Slackware then Red Hat in favour of Debian because the
>>package management in Debian is the best in the world -IMHO.
>>    
>>
>
>At the moment I'd agree without hesitation but the other distros are
>learning and working on their packaging, and while Debian's packaging
>system rocks it can be a right bastard to get some parts of the actual
>system working nicely once it's installed.
>
>[...]
>
Here I have to agree again.  If dealing with many different servers with 
different configurations, the Red Hat hardware detection routines work 
much better than Debian.  It saves me a lot of time, I can get on with 
an installation rather than having to open the machine to see what 
hardware is in there before I do a network install.

>  
>
>>In short the cost savings in man hours with Debian is huge and people cost
>>lots of money.
>>    
>>
>
>Depends on what you're using the machine for, from personal experience
>I'd disagree when it comes to the server side of things.
>
Whether serverside or desktop  side a lot of the savings come from the 
individual and the data they have collected along the way.  Things 
become faster for those that know their systems.  e.g. when I first 
tried to get KDE on Debian at the begining of the year it took me a long 
time to find a source that worked reliably and quickly.

Kind regards
Xander

>  
>


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug