In article <5959232.riJiDYC2ep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But each time I come to deciding the next generation of servers I have had
> > a look at the Apple Xserve. On paper they are good systems, basically a
> > UNIX so should be fine with all of the usual software I would add to a
> > server. It is only the price along with not knowing anyone with experience
> > of Xserve that stops the boy in me from giving it a go, it's only works
> > money afterall.
>
> Just remember that Apple are good at marketing. You say that they are "good
> systems on paper". Facts, on the other hand, are rarely advertised. People
> who Got the Facts^TM have been disappointed. Higher cost, worse performance.
> Adverts elevate price but guarantee no performance. In fact, the need to
> advertise is often driven by the need to eliminate and beat word of mouth.
What kind of performance issue do you think the Xserves have?
> Red Hat servers needn't be advertised. People just recommend them to one
> another. Red Hat doesn't sell; it takes orders.
Red Hat? I've used Red Hat for servers. Never more. For Linux, I only
recommend Debian.
--
Sandman[.net]
|
|
