Re: [SLE] Zmd/zen crap and rant
suse@rio.vg wrote:
You see, I'm not running a desktop or some basement server. My business depends on these machines.
So does mine. And 10.1 isn't going on to anything mission critical for a while. That's perfectly normal, I don't like being bleeding edge in production. And I have no need either. For now, 10.1 will go on workstations and desktops, whilst production remains on a mixture of 8.2 and 9.3. There is nothing in 10.1 that is critical to my business.
You know, that's a very valid point. It is generally considered good business practice to use older more-stable technology when running mission critical systems, particuarly in the back office. My development systems - on which I test web pages and run programming - are still running 9.3. I don't plan to upgrade to 10.0 until I have to. Conversely here at work, many of my machines are still running Windows 200 (NT 5.0) because we simply don't want to mess with what works. (Please, no Wintendo jokes from the audience.) I believe that's the logic behind Red Hat and SLED. Both systems use older kernels and not-the-latest desktops. -- k -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Conversely here at work, many of my machines are still running Windows 200 (NT 5.0) because we simply don't want to mess with what works. (Please, no Wintendo jokes from the audience.)
Give Windows 2003 a try. I too have to manage windows servers and Windows 2003 is really better that Windows 2000, it's more stable and requires less reboot -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:37 am, Gaël Lams wrote:
Conversely here at work, many of my machines are still running Windows 200 (NT 5.0) because we simply don't want to mess with what works. (Please, no Wintendo jokes from the audience.)
Give Windows 2003 a try. I too have to manage windows servers and Windows 2003 is really better that Windows 2000, it's more stable and requires less reboot
I have tried Windows 2003. I find it laughable. I still can't believe MS is trying to shoehorn a desktop/workgroup server into a enterprise server space. -- k -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
On Thursday 08 June 2006 8:09 am, kai wrote:
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:37 am, Gaël Lams wrote:
Conversely here at work, many of my machines are still running Windows 200 (NT 5.0) because we simply don't want to mess with what works. (Please, no Wintendo jokes from the audience.)
Give Windows 2003 a try. I too have to manage windows servers and Windows 2003 is really better that Windows 2000, it's more stable and requires less reboot
I have tried Windows 2003. I find it laughable.
I still can't believe MS is trying to shoehorn a desktop/workgroup server into a enterprise server space.
Yep, they are, and it will be a success. It WILL because of MickySoft's glitzy graphics, big push on it being secure now, and a LOT of marketing. 'Can't wait till the crackers get to it.......BIT TIME!! Fred -- Paid purchaser of ALL SuSE Linux releases since 6.x -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
I have tried Windows 2003. I find it laughable.
I still can't believe MS is trying to shoehorn a desktop/workgroup server into a enterprise server space.
I surely prefer Linux and I'm slight moving al the things I can to Linux: we had no linux servers 6 years ago but now have 15 Linux out of 50 servers (talking about producion servers obvioulsy). But, it you HAVE TO, for whatever reason, tstay with a Windows OS, Windows 2003 is definitively the better version they never made. I just said it cause I'm for sure not the only one that have to manage both windows and linux servers. Also, having to manage windows servers makes me really understand why I prefer Linux Regards, Gael -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
participants (4)
-
Fred A. Miller -
Gaël Lams -
kai -
Kai Ponte