From: Tim Boyer 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:23:51 -0400, Mike N.  wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:46:45 -0400, /m  wrote:
>
>>Depends upon what your needs are.
>
>  I would like to evaluate Linux on the desktop, but in the end I will need
>to target it to ultrareliable servers - sounds like RedHat may be the best
>way.   Is their main product the $179 Enterprise RedHat, or are there
>unsupported versions available for download?
>
>  This is an area Microsoft has ironically now disqualified itself with the
>WGA deactivation issues, just after Server 2003 reached the desired
>reliability levels.       They need to squash the deactivation rumors soon,
>but in any case it's clear that the new Microsoft is moving in directions
>other than serving the customer.

Red Hat Enterprise ES is their main version.  RHEL4 is the current version;
RHEL5 will be out December-ish.

I decided to go with Red Hat about two years ago.  Here's why.  I've spent
my entire technical career being absolutely, positively, technically
correct. Betamax, Data General, OS/2 - I've been right, and dammit, the
rest of the world has been wrong.

In my declining years (well, 50 last February) I decided to, just once in
my life, go with the popular choice.  Get something that _everybody_ is
writing for.  That I don't have to hack the compiler to get the program
running that compiles the program that I need.

So far, so good...

--
tim boyer
tim{at}denmantire.com

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5