Re: [cobalt-users] Red Hat 6.1 vs. RAQ

[Tom Socha <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I got the RAQ thinking that with the nifty neato control panel that I
would be Mr. Sysadmin in no time. Wrong. The control panel is nice for
adding users, etc, but I find myself working on the shell more then
anything. The control panel is very limited and most maintainence I do via
a command line.

If your using RedHat as a server in your office and not co-lo'd, you can
load one of the GUI's to work from (if your really looking for a Windows
environment) but if it is out of your office, most likely you will be
working on the shell.

I've had two RAQ2's running for almost a year now and except for a few
front page problems, the thing has never burped, crashed, or lost any data
(knock on wood!) We are adding two more raqs to the stack next month and
besides the non-Real server issues, they are a solid machine for hosting.
If you are looking for just a hosting solution, I'd go with a RAQ, if your
looking for an office solution  (file sharing, etc) go with a regualr
RedHat box. Remeber, a 'nix system is not Windows, so a high degree of
frustration may consume you until you get comfortable with it.

Tom Socha
Technical Services
MoJo Graphics
http://www.mojographics.com

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I am thinking about purchasing a Red Hat Linux 6.1 server on a P400 system
> w/64MB RAM. Does anyone have experience using Red Hat 6.1 as a server? Does
> it have the same features built into it out of the box that Cobalt offers in
> the RAQ's? How is the management? Is there a controll panel, etc?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> Fred Taub
> fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>