We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc...
We currently use Ubuntu on our dev machines and dev host. Seems like there wouldn't be much of a difference but not sure - hence this post.
Versions aside, most of a Linux distro is the same as any other. The
main difference you will find is the package management software.
My experience has been something like "rpm sucks and apt rules".
Thanks for the feedback. Seems if we had issues with the packages we
could always build from source - we do that on Ubuntu when all else
Regarding Postgres - you get pretty good performance from it? We use
MySQL but seems using Postgres wouldn't matter since Rails is db agnostic.
We had considered checking it out after hearing good reviews.
Craig White wrote:
No, it was an opinion based on years of experience using both RedHat
and Debian. I will remind you he said "We're curious of opinions
regarding it" and I returned exactly that, my experience-based,
Your post, on the other hand, seems to be the rather useless one, as
you didn't even give an opinion, just some blather about ceilings and
Thanks for the feedback - this helps.
Craig White wrote:
MW Administrator wrote:
We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our
host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any
issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc...
We usually use CentOS for our Rails development and deployment and go
with RHEL when the client longs for the enterprise support.
It's a great platform for running Rails applications -- robust and
without forced upgrades. The flip side of that is that some versions lag
behind. Noticably, you'll get Ruby 1.8.5, RubyGems 0.9 and a bunch of
older gems out of the box (RMagick comes to mind).
We usually stick with the packaged Ruby 1.8.5 but then maintain RubyGems
manually. Depending on our specific technical requirements we sometimes
manually track Ruby 1.8.6 and newer versions of ImageMagick and
MySQL is at version 5.0 so you should be safe there.
I run both Fedora Core 5 and Ubuntu 7.1.0 on two different machines
and they both work fine.
1. I mostly compile from sources and install in the standard
directories, i.e., /usr/local/. If you rely on package managers,
e.g., aptitude, apt, yum, rpm, then you are bound to get different
versions and different directory structures. Standardize on your
install structure and stay with it across the distros. This means
that you have to download the tarballs that you want and hand
compile. Well worth the effort in my opinion.
2. I mostly use Yum install which roughly parallels apt-get
installations. Rpm is at a much lower level and should only be used
if yum does not work. Having said that, try to install ruby,
rubygems, etc. from sources rather than the repositories and keep them
the same across both your Redhat and Ubuntu systems. You will find
that they work the same (to best of my knowledge). The more important
things are the supporting libraries for compilation and/or operation,
e.g., you need readline to support irb etc. The dev libraries need to
be installed to support compilation processes. They have some
variations across these systems and need to be researched. I did.
3. There was a thread in this forum where later versions of Fedora 8
(I believe) was causing memory leaks in ruby for someone. I think he
downgraded to Fedora 6. I have stayed with Fedora 5 since I don't
need the latest and greatest. Command line works the same across all
4. I had used Fedora, CentOS, and Redhat extensively before I came to
Ubuntu. It is just a matter of getting used to. Once again, if you
keep compiling from sources and keep the versions identical across the
linux distros, you will not notice any difference (at least I haven't
which has bothered me to the point where I can remember it).
5. Regarding desktop, I keep the default Gnome and really have not
noticed much of a difference except that Ubuntu is more polished.
Again, this is very subjective and I must admit, I am more of a
command line person than GUI user so these differences do not matter
much to me.
Hope this helps.
Excellent feedback - thanks for taking the time.
Especially since no one ever has corrupted data issues when using PostgreSQL.
I don't understand why you need to bait others with your highly
subjective opinions and in this case, obviously under informed.
698 pages of PostgreSQL listserv archive search results for the word
"corrupt" is not subjective. I don't own the site, nor are these my
list serve posts.
And seeing how I know about them, I seem to be quite informed.
PostgreSQL has corruption issues like any other database I've ever
Ignoring of course that there are more than 2x the number of hits
returned from a google search for 'mysql data corruption' than
'postgresql data corruption' and the fact that mysql is notorious for
data corruption, that would make sense.
That's exactly my point, all databases have corruption issues,
including the great and mighty PostgreSQL, or perhaps "especially" is
a more appropriate word here.
Personally, I think it's an insult to consider mysql in the same league
I like it just fine, but I'm not going to be so naive to think my data
can't be corrupted just because I'm using PostgreSQL.
But when the data really matters, it's postgres.
When the data really matters, I make backups.
We were asked for opinions and I gave one. Get over it.
we really need more of your highly relevant opinions
We really need more of your highly constructive criticism on how other people give opinions