From: /m 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:02:58 -0400, Tim Boyer  wrote:

>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...


Thanks for the assist with the additional info.

 /m

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