Re: Best Linux Distribution

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:

>Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on
>FreeBSD (since both use GCC)?
>
>
>
FreeBSD even has support for Linux *binaries.* In general, yes,
software developed on one should work on the other once you satisfy
dependencies.

Especially for something like PostgreSQL... There are a few caveats for
other software but this becomes a bit off-topic. For example, some
games won;t work because they require access to a framebuffer device
which FreeBSD doesn't have.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
>mmiranda(at)americatel(dot)com(dot)sv
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM
>To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
>is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
>OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments
>
>---
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
>To: esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>
>I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
>
>I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
>
>1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
>put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
>enough to account for them.
>
>2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
>on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
>toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
>likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
>recompile, for instance.
>
>3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
>greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
>since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
>because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
>slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
>just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
>bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
>supported by NetBSD.
>
>4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
>
>I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
>with Linux. Linux is too easy.
>
>I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
>is too easy.
>
>- Ian
>
>
>
>>>>Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Patrick Welche wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Any info about NetBSD?
>>>
>>>
>>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
>
>
>