FreeBSD on DL585

Has anyone been successful in running 64 bit FreeBSD on the DL585? If
there are any restrictions what are those?

--
Will

Run a fully supported OS for all the latest code rev's for agents,
management, and application support.

dont be cheap and short-change yourself. you will regret it in the long run
if you do.

- LC


"Will" wrote in message
...
Has anyone been successful in running 64 bit FreeBSD on the DL585? If
there are any restrictions what are those?

--
Will

My end user is committed to living on the bleeding edge. What can I say.

He's not cheap, just militant.

--
Will


"NuTCrAcKeR" wrote in message
...
Run a fully supported OS for all the latest code rev's for agents,
management, and application support.

dont be cheap and short-change yourself. you will regret it in the long
run
if you do.

- LC

"Support" from a name-brand computer company is an iffy proposition these days,
anyway. Well, maybe the server and networking support is a little bit better,
but support for desktop and notebook computers sux. And, yes, I am tarring and
feathering all of them with the same brush and bag of feathers... Ben Myers

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:08:22 -0800, "Will" wrote:

My end user is committed to living on the bleeding edge. What can I say.

He's not cheap, just militant.

--
Will


"NuTCrAcKeR" wrote in message
...
Run a fully supported OS for all the latest code rev's for agents,
management, and application support.

dont be cheap and short-change yourself. you will regret it in the long
run
if you do.

- LC

By "support", I am specifically addressing HPaq's native driver, agent,
applications and tool support for an operating system. When it comes to the
opensource-ish stuff, there are a very small number of distributions that
are "supported". That also means that you can contact the vendor for help
with your system, provided its running an OS they have certified for that
particular hardware platform.

Ive read your posts for years, Ben, and have lot of respect for you. Servers
are my thing ... HP, Compaq, Dell, and IBM.

If you have real hardware you should be using a real, supported operating
system. To do otherwise is a joke and you do yourself, and your customers a
dis-service.

- LC

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message
...
"Support" from a name-brand computer company is an iffy proposition these
days,
anyway. Well, maybe the server and networking support is a little bit
better,
but support for desktop and notebook computers sux. And, yes, I am
tarring and
feathering all of them with the same brush and bag of feathers... Ben
Myers

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:08:22 -0800, "Will"
wrote:

My end user is committed to living on the bleeding edge. What can I say.

He's not cheap, just militant.

--
Will


"NuTCrAcKeR" wrote in message
...
Run a fully supported OS for all the latest code rev's for agents,
management, and application support.

dont be cheap and short-change yourself. you will regret it in the long
run
if you do.

- LC

If you have real hardware you should be using a real, supported operating
system.

Certainly a true statement, but it raises an interesting dilema. In the
case of my ProLiant 3000's, if I wanted to run (for instance) a Redhat
distribution, I am limited to the latest supported release...Redhat
7.0. Now, I know through personal experience that Compaq's support IS
needed to load 7.0 onto a 3000...you have to get their disk full of
drivers burned before the install. However, more modern versions of the
OS (I use Fedora Core 4...but any of the Enterprise editions will
apply) actually have all of the drivers built in, including everything
they need to recognize and run the Smart Array cards.

So why does Compaq not support Redhat newer than 7.0? Because they
suspended ALL OS support for these machines back at the time that 7.0
was the latest and greatest. So do we now force ourselves to become
frozen back at the last supported version? I would certainly be
sacrificing my ability to enjoy that modern features of cutting edge
applications and utilities.

Of course, this post deals with BSDFree, which I have never played
with. I cannot confirm that BSD is as intuitive and driver rich as
Fedora Core, but being that it is a modern system I would guess that it
is pretty close.

"Jeffrey Alsip" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you have real hardware you should be using a real, supported operating
system.

Certainly a true statement, but it raises an interesting dilema. In the
case of my ProLiant 3000's, if I wanted to run (for instance) a Redhat
distribution, I am limited to the latest supported release...Redhat
7.0. Now, I know through personal experience that Compaq's support IS
needed to load 7.0 onto a 3000...you have to get their disk full of
drivers burned before the install. However, more modern versions of the
OS (I use Fedora Core 4...but any of the Enterprise editions will
apply) actually have all of the drivers built in, including everything
they need to recognize and run the Smart Array cards.

So why does Compaq not support Redhat newer than 7.0? Because they
suspended ALL OS support for these machines back at the time that 7.0
was the latest and greatest. So do we now force ourselves to become
frozen back at the last supported version? I would certainly be
sacrificing my ability to enjoy that modern features of cutting edge
applications and utilities.

Of course, this post deals with BSDFree, which I have never played
with. I cannot confirm that BSD is as intuitive and driver rich as
Fedora Core, but being that it is a modern system I would guess that it
is pretty close.


An interesting discussion, to be sure. However, I am a windows supporter
(out of need more than choice), so the subtleties of the opensource
distributions are more than lost on me. I only know what the drivers and
support pages on the HP site tell me, to the extent that i have tried to use
the Enterprise Linux drivers with older distros's and failed.

It comes to a point of compromise. If you wish to run FC4 on a 3000 to get a
wide range of native driver support, go ahead. Dont expect that you will be
able to successfully load the agents, tools, and utilitities that make
Compaq/HP servers the head-and-shoulders choice above the rest.

When it really comes down to it, are you an enthusiast, or an engineer
supporting a revenue-generating, true business environment? If the prior, go
ahead and play with whatever you want to. If the latter, play it safe and go
with the supported platforms. If your machine supports only opensource
distributions that are not remotely current, upgrade your hardware platform
to something that supports the latest releases of the currently supported
OS's. We all know that it doesnt cost and arm and a leg to get more
horsepower than we know what to do with. Any engineer with 1/2 a brain
should have no problems building and presenting a business case to managers,
or a customer, for reason to spend $7500 on the right server for the job. I
remember when a fully appointed PL5000 cost upwards of $60,000 .... my, how
times have changed. I built a complete (and I do mean COMPLETE) PL5000 5
years ago for about $600. Economies of scale my friends ... this stuff is
CHEAP now.

- LC