My take on "Which Unix to learn"

I came across this post on TaoSecurity today, with Richard Bejtlich's suggestions for an "Introduction to Unix." Like text editors, the discussion about which distribution of Unix to learn can be considered a "religious" argument. If you're a regular reader of his blog, it's no surprise he suggests FreeBSD. He does clarify and say if you're running a server, he suggests FreeBSD; and if you're running a desktop, he now prefers Ubuntu. And if you're still adamant about running Linux as a server, he suggests Debian.

My opinion differs, depending mainly on "why do you want to learn Unix?" If the answer is related to increasing your work/resume skill sets, I would have to disagree about using FreeBSD or any of its other BSD derivatives (Net, Open, etc.). In my experiences of being an admin or some other support role, I have yet to encounter a *BSD server. I'd encourage someone to use a distribution that they would encounter in a corporate environment. The Unix server OS's I've had to support have been Red Hat (now Fedora), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (also known as RHEL), and Sun Solaris. To avoid having to pay licensing fees, you could substitute CentOS for RHEL.

If I were asked the question, I would suggest a "major" Linux distribution or Solaris/Open Solaris instead. I would think their device names, software packages, and file system organization would help with familiarity when trying to translate the knowledge learned to a corporate environment. Although this may be an unfounded opinion, I also think that there are more support options and supported software using them, rather than using *BSD. I do agree with Bejtlich that if you want to run a Unix distribution on the desktop, to stick with Ubuntu, since it seems to "just work" when installed and there are less configuration headaches. Or you can just use a Mac if you want a Unix desktop (troll... and yes Mac could be considered a BSD variant).

Red Hat Satellite 5.2 released

In an earlier post, I mentioned I was unable to fit Red Hat Satellite or Fedora Spacewalk into our infrastructure. The previous version of Red Hat Satellite required Oracle 9i (we run 10g), and Spacewalk requires a derivative of RHEL/CentOS 5 (our standard is version 4). I saw this release today by Red Hat announcing Satellite version 5.2. It now supports Oracle 10g, and still runs on RHEL4 or RHEL5. Too bad everyone is hurting now and pulling the purse strings on their budgets. It would be tough for me to ask for a RHEL AS4 and a Satellite 5.2 license now.

I wonder how hard it would be to backport Spacewalk to RHEL4?

Unhappy with Red Hat

Right now, I'm not happy with Red Hat. At least not with their sales department.

My group is interested in the capabilities of Red Hat Satellite Server, so I was going to try to obtain a trial license and download it. As far as I know, we don't have any RHEL licenses in our department. I'm sure somewhere in the company we do, since we have thousands of employees, but I sincerely doubt I'll be able to track that account down, and even then, doubt I can use it for access to the Red Hat Network. So, I applied for a trial license of RHEL and was hoping through that entry into RHN, I could also get a trial of Satellite Server. I still couldn't find that as a download, so I've made a couple of attempts to submit requests through their website on how I could evaluate their Satellite Server. No response. I would think sales people would jump at the chance to talk to a warm body that offered up their contact information.

I know there's Spacewalk, and I am interested in that. Unfortunately, it's only supported on RHEL5 compatible OS's. Our standard hasn't included RHEL5 yet; and they aren't open to "exceptions".

Any suggestions? Are there other resale vendors I could talk to that would let me have a 30 day evaluation to download and run Satellite for RHEL4?