Linux Version of filePro....Redhat vs Debian

[Walter Vaughan]

Scott Walker wrote:

> I have several customers running our fp based application on Red Hat
> Linux (various versions 7, 8, 9, Enterprise 3, Enterprise 4, Fedora 3,
> Fedora 4).  They all seem to work fine.
> 
> I have a another customer thinking of migrating from SCO to Debian
> Linux.  How different should I expect that to be from the Red Hat stuff.
> Does it use the same fp runtime executables?  Any comments appreciated.

Comments? This list?

You are migrating from SCO, so I guess this won't be a workstation. If someone 
is going to use it as a desktop, Ubuntu gets my vote these days. Even the laptop 
that I won at the filepro Developers conference in 2003 (wait, I'm typing on 
that machine right now) is running Xubuntu. Hands down it passes the 
"grandmother test". I love it. It actually controls the ACPI properly. With 
WindowsXP it would lockup sporadically on wake from suspend, screen savers, or 
just lock up. I put the windows drive back in, and it locked up within 2 hours. 
I think my uptime is about a month now and is running within a second from a 
suspend.

 From the server side, my first love is FreeBSD. But I *have* to recommend 
CentOS or Ubuntu as a server. CentOS because it's Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and 
I've used for nearly a year on a Tomcat server) and you or whomever is admining 
it is experienced with "yum update". If "apt-get" get you going, then Ubuntu 
because it can be installed as a character only server based upon Debian, except 
with the billions of $USD of engineering that Cannonical is putting into the 
project.

I hope those other servers are not visible to the internet. Everything but the 
RHEL3/4 and FC3/4's can be owned at will, and the FC3 and FC4 are EOL'ed.

--
Walter

P.S. I have nothing against the rest of the people here who will claim Suse. I'm 
just not happy with Novell and basically saying "define is" with regards to the 
GPL and patent indemnity.