To expand on this topic - if the price tag of RHEL4 appears too high: there are several no-cost, entirely binary-compatible distributions based on the source RPMS of RHEL4 ("clones" named CentOS, Scientific Linux, TAO Linux, Whitebox Linux, X/OS Linux, Pie Box Linux, Lineox, ...). Scientific Linux, for example, is set up and used by several huge organizations (Fermilab, CERN, DESY, universities).
All of these clones are only suitable if you do not need individual support by Redhat's software engineers. You might however be able to find help on the clones' mailing lists; the CentOS list (which you can read at news.gmane.org) is very active.
Redhat has made a strong commitment to Open Source and one can expect that this will extend into the foreseeable future. Furthermore, they appear to do very well economically with their business model. It might be interesting to read the final chapters of <http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/UNID/0358EF0F3EFF0584CC2570AA0073523A?OpenDocument>, concerning their opinion towards CentOS.
One other point: you might want to consider whether the OS platform you choose allows 64bit computing (I mean "AMD64" or "EM64T", not Itanium). I would not invest money and effort into a OS that does not support 64bit computing.
HTH, Kay Sergei Strelkov wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk *** Dear All, like many other groups, we are currently facing the need to move from an aging SGI/Alpha cluster to a more modern computing environment. The obvious alternatives to choose from are Linux, OSX or Windows. We are aiming at solving interesting structuresrather than at developing software -- and yes, we only have a limited support from IT professionals.1. MS Windows: While many people would probably exclude Windows right away, I am especially interested in collecting opinions about this option. True, a Windows box can never be a full replacement for a Unix workstation. However, many pieces of software (not least the CCP4/CCP4i) are perfectly usable under Windows! The main advantage in our case, and in most other places, probably, is that nearly all students use/own PCs (desktops or laptops) already. Do there happen to exist any web resources summarising the setup and use of Windows for biocrystallography (something like the awesome site by W. Scott on crystallography on OSX)? It does seem that there are no Windows versions of several important crystallographic programs/packages but I may be not up to date -- does anyone have a list of those that are available? With Windows, there exist ways and tools that provide modalities typical for unix environments -- how usable are all these? How usable is cygwin? 2. OSX: Clearly, there has been much attention to this platform lately, and most Xtallographic programs have been ported. Hardware is generally good. The setup/maintenance is generally easier than for Linux. One specific quiestion: is buying an Intel-based Mac (and not a G5-based) is advisable at this stage as much of the software is not yet optimised for Intels? The well-known problem with Macs is a lesser choice of general-purpose software. One particular difficulty is that the OSX version of MS Office (especially the Powerpoint) has never been optimised properly (IMHO). 3. Linux: Many advantages and one big concern: the difficulty of setting up. I would be very grateful for any feedback, please write either to the BB or to me directly. I will post a summary of all replies. Best wishes, Sergei.
-- Kay Diederichs http://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/~kay email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel +49 7531 88 4049 Fax 3183 Fachbereich Biologie, Universität Konstanz, Box M647, D-78457 Konstanz
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
