Dave Sherohman <esper at sherohman.org> writes: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:03:29PM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > <dead horse action=beat> > > I think the prime place for Redhat is the corporate server room, and maybe > > the corporate desktop as well. the tested integrity of their distribution > > (something debian unstable doesn't have), balanced against the recentness of > > their packages (something debian stable doesn't have), is a good fit for the > > corporate environment, where stability is valued, but we still need the > > latest applications to compete with other camps' offerings. (Sun, M$, Apple, > > Novell) > > </dead horse> > > Huh? I don't see the corporate server room as a place where > freshness is more valuable than stability, and it certainly shouldn't > be the domain of "newbies who don't know what's available and what > they can do with it", so why would you rank Red Hat above Debian > stable there? (I can see your point wrt the desktop (although I > disagree), but aren't your servers supposed to be absolutely > rock-solid stable, even if it means giving up bells and whistles?) That's what the sysadmins want, but the people deploying applications on them want current versions and/or the latest patches. It tends to be a bit of a conflict area in my experience. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info