RedHat vs. the rest of Linux
hguse at dpnsecurity.com
Tue Jun 25 11:32:00 CDT 2002
Incorrectly sent the first time...fingers are faster than the brain.
Ouch no flames from me, but please don't put BSD in the linux catagory...
As far as distros go:
I use OpenBSD, FreeBSD, RedHat x.x
I have used Suse, but I don't like Yast...of course I don't like anything that isn't command line, easy, and fast.
Here is how I chose my distros:
OpenBSD -only on firewalls. I limit the hardware and we never let a client touch it for liability reasons. It runs extremely lean and secure. OH and pf (packet filter for OpenBSD) makes IP Chains/tables look like a convoluted ball of yarn that my cat got to.
FreeBSD -InterOffice only. Partially chosen because business partner/boyfriend kept whining :) (he is a bsd guy). Actually, the distrubution has managed to keep up with driver development, and compiling is way to easy.
RedHat -All client installs (file, print, mail). I chose RedHat, because Dell made it easy by supporting and bundling. And because moving 10 locations off of pure Microsloth is not easy until you tell them, "that yes this is opensource, but commercial support is available". I am not a huge fan of RPMs, yes in theory they are great, rpm -i...poof*. But alas this has not been the case and often I prefer the old way so at least I can point it to the correct libraries that are installed but that the rpm couldn't find. All in all, I have been happy. And The crazy guys on this list have been great.
Oh yeah. Keep up the great support.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:19:55PM -0600, Aly Dharshi had written:
> Greetings Collin, All:
> Collins, Kevin wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >Some time back I read a reply to someone in this group from (I think) Matt
> >Domsch (excuse me if I have that wrong) stating that Dell supports Linux on
> >all of their servers.
> >The first thing that I want to do is remind everyone here that I am a newbie
> >to Linux. The distribution that I have used the most is RedHat (both 7.2
> >and 7.3) - primarily because Dell sells it on their servers and on some
> >workstations. I figured, I'll need to know RedHat if I'm going to buy Dells
> >with Linux, so I started down that path first.
> Wise idea, to start with the supported OS on Dell servers.
> >The reason I bring that up is because I laid my hands on SuSE Linux 8.0
> >Professional at Best Buy earlier in the week and have been trying it out as
> >a Desktop replacement for Windows at home. I must say in the week that I
> >have used SuSE that I am impressed by it. Probably 10 times more than I am
> >with RedHat - especially with YaST2 and the ability to add software in the
> >form of RPMs to a base install. All of this may be a "newbie" mistake, but
> >I feel that I can gain better results from using SuSE than I can from
> Supposedly I was informed a while back that SuSE is the number 1
> distro, followed by RH and down the chain somewhere at number 7 or so
> was Debian and Mandrake. No flames please as this is what I had heard
> from one of the admins whose boss was at a Linux conference.
> Professional is decent, but their basic is crappy. You cannot download
> their workstation edition which is the equivalent of the basic edition
> of RH.
> >So the big question here is: Why does Dell bundle RedHat? I can understand
> >the economics behind the scenes (if that's what it is) and am OK with that.
> >But if Dell supports "Linux" and not "just RedHat Linux", then why is RedHat
> >the only option for bundling with their hardware? Is there some fundamental
> >reason that the Dell Engineers decided to use RedHat above any other
> What I like about Dell is most of their hardware is generic enough
> to work on most distros. I remember using the P133 desktops with Solaris
> 6/7/8 as well as RH Linux 5/6 and it worked A1Okay. But RedHat is most
> used though. Sales are better than that of SuSE. SuSE has never given
> out a decent downloadable iso off their site as I have noted in their
> package list. RedHat is quite decent. I have 3 CD's of the stuff off the
> web for 7.3 and 2 for 7.2 and it works perfectly with all the packages
> that one would need for a server. The rest which are not packaged like
> say Exim or Courier (are you listening RH package this stuff its good)
> you can compile and install, courier is RH RPM friendly so you can
> generate your own RPM's.
> Plus they are more popular in North America and Europe than is SuSE
> (correct me if I am wrong). I have heard that people sometimes have
> compiling issues on SuSe or some software isn't SuSE compatible (correct
> me if I am wrong). YaST is not bad at all I like it better than the
> Nautilus program which Linuxconf beats any day of the week.
> >The other (probably more important) question is: Is there anything that
> >anyone in this group whose experience tells them that SuSE is a bad way to
> >go compared to RedHat? Should I use RedHat because it is fundamentally
> >better than SuSE? Should I go down the RedHat path and be done with it? If
> >so, WHY?
> Recently the U of L took a vote on the new OS to go to away from
> Solaris (slowly), Debian and RedHat came up. Debian is rock solid but in
> my opinion when I last reviewed it behind times, they were still on a
> 2.2 kernel. So the fact that RH is supported by Dell, Oracle, I would
> stick to it, even Sun is going to do some Iplanet stuff for Linux the
> first would be RH and Sun Linux. The school went RH, 7.2 for now. I
> would have liked that they upgrade to 7.3 but maybe they are waiting for
> it to settle down abit, I trust it for my servers though. It fairs well
> on me laptop too.
> Now if I were to call Dell and told them that I was running RedHat
> then I would get a better support as they bundle that (whatever their
> reasons are) I seem to think of SuSE as the BSD of Linux. Not really in
> the shadows but not in the limelight either.
> You mentioned that you are new to Linux, and if you are managing
> Dell servers for whatever your service is then go with RH until you are
> a Linux guru and since you are running SuSE at home you soon will be
> then slowly get off it if you feel compelled to.
> >I don't want to start a flame war, I'm just curious about why RedHat is so
> >dominant and whether SuSE would be a bad choice for me from a corporate
> >server standpoint. I have so little experience, that I feel I need guidance
> >from those who have traveled the road several miles more than I have.
> For a decent SuSE distro I have to pay for it, I am a student and no
> is the answer, the "basic" RH version is the decent as you get a full
> complete set, web servers to multimedia. The Workstation edition for
> SuSE gives that. Even Debian does a better job of providing pkgs aka
> debs. Atleast they provide a decent mail server like Exim. Mandrake
> would be the other choice and was good while it was based on RH but when
> they decided to do their own thing they really messed up. Its decent for
> the desktop.
> So if you want to be hassle free in the office, stick with RedHat on
> the server end, go with SuSE if you like on your office workstation and
> home machine and the reason is that you will have a better time and more
> help from Dell when you call them and say you know what I can't get the
> sound card on my Dell 2550 going and its my blooming mp3 server :) :) :)
> and they may say try this or that, or if you were to ask them that my
> scsi device isn't doing this then they can advise appropriately. I say
> this because you are a newbie to linux. I find RH kernels to be of
> decent quality too.
> Hope that this helps some.
> Aly Dharshi
> aly.dharshi at uleth.ca
> aly.dharshi at smail.info
> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq or search the list archives at http://lists.us.dell.com/htdig/
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge