From: | Alex Knight <knight(at)phunc(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | GH <grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tim Barnard <tbarnard(at)povn(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2001-06-27 21:52:32 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0106271450270.18309-100000@blowfish.phunc.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:04:27PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> > <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?
>
> None of them. Run FreeBSD. It's better.
> Redhat (and, well, Linux) is mostly geared toward Desktops.
> It is supposedly "userfriendly", which just makes it a piece of crap and
> buggy. If you prefer using things like "RPM" and dealing with GNU
> crappage and glibc issues all the time, then you probably want to use
> Linux., possibly in the form of Redhat if you really feel sadistic.
Being a hardcore FreeBSD follower, I agree FreeBSD is great for server
scenarios. But, Linux can be a great server too, especially with the 2.4.x
kernel releases; iptables > *.
Too bad the poor people at RH couldn't keep up. ;) *poke poke*
Knight
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-06-27 21:59:52 | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-06-27 21:47:16 | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |