Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Ok, I was lying. RedHat > *

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Tim Barnard wrote:

> Wow, I didn't realize I was going to open such a big can of worms :-)
>
> Thanks to everyone for putting in their "two-cents worth."
> All of the responses have definitely been helpful. And I
> agree with Adam, et al, this really doesn't belong on this
> list so lets end this thread and move on.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Barnard" <tbarnard(at)povn(dot)com>
> To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL
>
> On 27 Jun 2001, Tim Barnard wrote:
>
> <snip>
> ...This is not the same in my book, since I don't care
> to run RHL in any kind of production environment...
> <snip>
>
> What is it about RHL that various people wouldn't
> recommend running it in a production envornment?
> I don't have a contrary view, so much as I'd like to
> know what's specifically wrong with the RH distribution.
> We're trying to decide on a distribution on which to
> develop telecom software, utilizing PostgreSQL of
> course :-) What other distributions would you
> recommend and why?
>
> Tim
>
>
>