Brent,
> If he is using Debian, an admirable Linux distro, I would tend to agree,
> but what about RedHat? Don;t get me wrong, Debian suits a variety of
> situations, but if you have a large set of servers to keep up, then the RH
> choicxe could be better in terms of workload for a sysadmin. That being
> said though, a good Debian centric admin would have a plan in place and
> apt-get at their disposal to address this so called issue.
I have had to downgrade a good number of RedHat servers or hold them back
because of RedHat's rather broken RPM dependency issues. People who say that
"you can't use [name some such distribution]" in the enterprise generally
:
1) Have a religious love of another distribution
2) Have no real knowledge of the distribution that's allegedly not good
enough
3) Have opened their mouth before thinking and/or put foot in such mouth
A person not familiar with a particular distribution is obviously going to
take longer than a person familiar with it. That's no indication of whether
a particular distribution is a "better choice in terms of workload" fo ra
sysadmin.
I postulate this null hypothesis:
"That the Debian packaging system--with its configuration tools, priority
levels and in-built dependency handling--coupled with a tightly controlled,
peer reviewed, open source repository is flawed and likely to increase a
system administrator's workload."
Now, go prove it...
DSL
--
Microbits Linux Technician
+61 8 8362 9220
Attachment:
pgp00012.pgp
Description: PGP signature