Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development platforms. However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that quite shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform. As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own PERL5LIB dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering standardised live applications you can roll out and support.
Regards, Peter Dragonstaff Limited http://www.dragonstaff.com Business IT Consultancy -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 November 2007 18:43 To: The elegant MVC web framework Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Ubuntu / Catalyst Matt S Trout wrote: > 6.06 was the last one that was serious production quality. > > 7.04 has a bastardized fstab setup, a bleeding-edge init replacement, and > a host of other not-really-unix-or-linux-or-anything-else-but-ubuntu-isms. > > But hell, it's your platform and that's just my opinion. None of our servers > are going past 6.06 though :) > > I've played with 6.06, 6.10, 7.04 and 7.10 versions on VMware - the 7.xx versions both get 'stuck' at the 'Running local boot scripts (/etc/rc.local)' output, which happens after the first login prompt, and requires a keyboard entry to 'push' it along. I don't know if this is a VM issue though, as I've not run either as production. Any thoughts on CentOS 5 for production quality? -- Richard Jones _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
