Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

> 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