On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:11:48PM +, Richard Jones wrote:
> Matt S Trout wrote:
> >That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat.
> >
> >
> Dead Rat == CentOS 5?
Anything that came out of Red Hat, basically :)
I'm not a fan.
--
Matt S Trout Need help with
Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:11:48PM +, Richard Jones wrote:
>> Matt S Trout wrote:
>>> That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat.
>>>
>>>
>> Dead Rat == CentOS 5?
>
> Anything that came out of Red Hat, basically :)
>
> I'm not a fan.
>
Really?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:39:38AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I mostly agree with Matt's take on unix/linux issues -- I will
> give my support to Cent/RH here. It is true, they have had some missteps
> with perl in the past. Those tend get resolved fairly quickly. The perl
> s
Matt S Trout wrote:
That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat.
Dead Rat == CentOS 5?
I simply don't consider RH distros a deployment platform you'd choose unless
mandated to use them, and prefer to build my own perl if I have to.
CentOS 5's vendor perl will show a 2
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:43:33AM +1030, Jon Schutz wrote:
> Personally I would not consider Ubuntu suitable as a production server
> platform as it is too close to the bleading edge.
Because 6.06 is the long-term supported release it's been rather more
conservative.
As I've already said, I don'
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:16:54AM +, Richard Jones wrote:
> > Peter Edwards wrote:
> > >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
> > >pla
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 11:16 +, Richard Jones wrote:
> Peter Edwards wrote:
> > 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.
> > How
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:16:54AM +, Richard Jones wrote:
> Peter Edwards wrote:
> >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.
> >H
On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:16, Richard Jones wrote:
Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production
server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt
mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what
way is Perl broken on CentOS 5?
Some bodged b
Peter Edwards wrote:
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
sh
10 matches
Mail list logo
