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

Joke removed.

-Knight