| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Recommend me a Linux distro for Firebird |
|---|---|
| Author | Milan Babuskov |
| Post date | 2009-03-21T13:01:58Z |
Lester Caine wrote:
(20+) Mandrivas we had running at production servers at customer sites
and replaced them with Slackware. Vanilla Linux kernel has got so good
that most of the stuff just works out of the box and distribution
specific patches are needed less than before (in fact, not needed at all
if you use mainstream hardware). Even for desktop workstations.
Of course, Slackware is good when you know exactly what you want of
applications on it (like dedicated database server or POS workstation).
If you want an office-usage desktop where people like to install some
other applications, it's easier to go with something liku Ubuntu where
all software is just a click away. IMHO, of course.
Using package manager to install and upgrade Firebird is something I
don't like. It barely saves any time (installing Firebird .tar.gz
package from official website is very easy and quick) and you still have
to read the release notes to understand what has been changed and test
if stuff still works after you upgrade. This is a database server and
all you applications need to pass QA with new version before you let it
go into production (so unlike upgrading, for example, Firefox, here
you're upgrading multiple applications).
Having an upgrade easily available for the end user via package manager
tool breaks this process and allows customers to "upgrade" and have the
thing working without it being properly tested (or even without you
knowing about it). This is one of the main reasons I stay away from
distributions that can "Use package manager to install and update Firebird".
Just my $0.02.
--
Milan Babuskov
http://www.flamerobin.org
http://www.guacosoft.com
> I'm becoming rather disillusioned with Mandriva. While the 2007 buildsI have to agree with you. At my company, during 2008 we phased out all
> worked nicely hardware wise, the builds WITH Firebird in have not been
> so transparent in other areas, and the 2009 builds are simply a pain -
> when one is already used to unix/linux! I think a lot of the
> distributions are starting to suffer the 'windows' effect, and adding
> facilities and desktops that actually detract from a good server
> environment.
(20+) Mandrivas we had running at production servers at customer sites
and replaced them with Slackware. Vanilla Linux kernel has got so good
that most of the stuff just works out of the box and distribution
specific patches are needed less than before (in fact, not needed at all
if you use mainstream hardware). Even for desktop workstations.
Of course, Slackware is good when you know exactly what you want of
applications on it (like dedicated database server or POS workstation).
If you want an office-usage desktop where people like to install some
other applications, it's easier to go with something liku Ubuntu where
all software is just a click away. IMHO, of course.
Using package manager to install and upgrade Firebird is something I
don't like. It barely saves any time (installing Firebird .tar.gz
package from official website is very easy and quick) and you still have
to read the release notes to understand what has been changed and test
if stuff still works after you upgrade. This is a database server and
all you applications need to pass QA with new version before you let it
go into production (so unlike upgrading, for example, Firefox, here
you're upgrading multiple applications).
Having an upgrade easily available for the end user via package manager
tool breaks this process and allows customers to "upgrade" and have the
thing working without it being properly tested (or even without you
knowing about it). This is one of the main reasons I stay away from
distributions that can "Use package manager to install and update Firebird".
Just my $0.02.
--
Milan Babuskov
http://www.flamerobin.org
http://www.guacosoft.com