On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Robert Soricone wrote: > A computer network, that is currently using RedHat, is interested in migrating > to another distribution. Preferably, by April 30 2004. *Looks into crystal ball* I predict that you are using Redhat 9. [RH9 "end of life" is on that day. RH7.x and RH8 is EoL'ed at the end of this year] > If the group were to > consider moving to Debian, what in-house work would need to be performed that > was previously being done by the RH engineers? If your guys know linux, they shouldn't have a problem. If they only know Redhat, there will probably be a learning curve. If they only know Redhat-GUI, then that problem will be bigger then expected. Redhat does tend to make things easier for the inexperienced linux users. That's part of the RH package. Also, most commercial 'linux' packages seem to be developed for Redhat. Plesk, for example, only runs on FreeBSD and Redhat. > The FAI package can duplicate > the functionality of kickstart, but security is of primary concern. I need > some specifics to argue in favor of adopting Debian, and what exactly it would > entail. Can you point me in the right direction? =================================[PRO]================================= I find that the official Debian packages tend to be finer grained then the official Redhat packages. Last time I installed postfix on Redhat, I had to manually compile the rpms to get mysql enabled. Under Debian, I would have downloaded the postfix-mysql package and let Debian worry about the rest. Security updates for Debian-stable tend to be quick. Debian can easily use 'apt-get' or a similiar tool to quickly update the entire distribution to include all the latest security patches or to upgrade to a different version. Unless you are skipping several versions, distribution upgrades tend to go smoothly. Debian can be quickly stripped down to only include what you need. If you are comfortable working from the command line, a server can only include what you need. RH can also be set up this way, but I find it a lot harder to do. =================================[CON]================================= Debian-stable (the branch you want to be using for servers) tends to be several months to a year behind the bleeding edge. This bothers some people. For a server, I'd rather go with a tested solution then the bleeding edge, but others differ. Debian-testing (which some people use for their desktops) is more up to date, but the security updates tend to be slower. It also (rarely) breaks. There is no 'official' commercial support for Debian. Redhat (distribution) had Redhat (company) behind it. (Same company that dropped supporting the low-end consumer line, but it was still a company). ================================[Links]================================ 1) Debian home page: http://www.debian.org/ 2) Debian documentation: http://www.debian.org/doc/ 3) #debian IRC channel on freenode (good place for questions): irc://irc.freenode.org/debian 4) Knoppix "live" CD - a debian-based OS that runs entirely from the CD: http://www.knoppix.org/ -- icq: 34583382 | Nethack 3.4.2 is out! http://www.nethack.org jabber: dasunt@theoretic.com | "And how can man die better / Than facing msn: dasunt@hotmail.com | fearful odds / For the ashes of his fathers / yim: tsunad | and the temples of his gods?" ~ Babington
Attachment:
pgpYNFfUS8THU.pgp
Description: PGP signature