On 6/3/2011 10:12 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Les Mikesell<lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> That's not what I said. I said Red Hat's redistribution restriction
>> created the need for Ubunutu. And that the community that is now
>> dependent on RH-rebuilds might be better served by a distribution that
>> does not restrict redistribution in the first place. These aren't
>> cause/effect but you could put them together if you want.
>
> Everyone is free to use what they want -- that's the cool thing about
> Linux -- choice. But, for me, Ubuntu is too "bleeding edge" to be a
> viable replacement for Red Hat/CentOS.
>
There's only about half a dozen distros that I consider good enough for
server work. The advantage of using distros from the RHEL family line
is that Red Hat's primary focus is business, which means I can count on
them being a lot more conservative about changing / breaking things then
the bleeding edge distros.
If I didn't have access to RHEL / CentOS / SL, then I'd probably run
either Debian or Ubuntu LTS on servers. Because once you get past a
certain point, Linux is Linux. The major differences tend to lie in
package management, start-up scripts, systems administration and the GUI
administration tools. Applications like PostgreSQL, Apache, etc.
generally don't care which version of Linux they run on.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
