On 6/3/2011 10:12 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikesell@gmail.com 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.