On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 10:33:14PM -0400, Gerry Doris wrote: > I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but the workstation version is NOT > equal to the old Redhat Linux. It sounds like the WS version is missing > all of the server functionality that was in RHL. It also costs $179USD > which seems high compared to the boxed version of other distros like SuSE.
You're wrong :-) >From what I know, this is based on the RHEL WS, but it is not RHEL WS. It most definitely does *NOT* have a $179/year price tag. It's not missing all of the server applications, even if it's identical to RHEL WS. Here's the list of server apps that I took from the taroon beta: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ewilts]$ grep server up2date.showall.ws mysql-server-3.23.58-1.i386 openssh-server-3.6.1p2-18.i386 rh-postgresql-server-7.3.4-4.i386 rsh-server-0.17-17.i386 rusers-server-0.17-31.1.i386 telnet-server-0.17-26.i386 vnc-server-4.0-0.beta4.1.1.i386 httpd, sendmail, and postfix are also included. For a small office, WS is pretty good - no FTP server or named, but other than that you're pretty close to everything you could want. You've got ssh, sql, and web servers, and you could use zoneedit or something like that for your dns. If you want an ftp or dns server, you can add that easily enough. > I'm not saying the WS version is a bad prodcut...it just isn't the > same as the old RHL. I'm suspecting that we'll like the new product more than the old RHL product, but of course we'll both have to wait and see what the pricing is like and what the rest of the details are. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
