On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:04, 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?
Previous to version 7.1, RHL wasn't very secure by default. This is one of
the most common complaints I hear. 7.1 can be made quite secure out of the
box without any special config -- just leave the firewall config at the
default of 'HIGH' -- of course, I've now heard complaints that it is then
'too secure' :-). The 2.4 Linux kernel is a big win for me -- I saw a factor
of two performance increase on the regression suite when I upgraded to kernel
2.4 over 2.2 on the same hardware -- it's nice for the parallel tests to run
in 44 seconds on our PIII 600. Not a screamer -- but not a slouch.
I think most people that say they'd not run RHL either simply don't like
Linux or just don't like Red Hat. Nothing different in this than the
attitude of MySQL users who just simply don't like PostgreSQL. Or they've
heard that Postgres95 1.01 was a dog, so they won't use PostgreSQL 7.1.2.
The same comparison holds for Red Hat -- the number of possible reasons to
not use it in a production, 24x7, high-load environment are shrinking with
every release.
> 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?
Any PostgreSQL supported platform is an OK choice. I personally would try to
not make it distribution-specific -- you will kick yourself later if you do.
Making it PostgreSQL-specific, of course, is not a problem :-). FreeBSD has
good support, and runs very well if you're not hung up on using Linux. But
I've found RHL just fine for my needs.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
