From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2007-07-24T12:23:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Editor

Chad Perrin wrote:
>> Red Hat is another good example of a thriving open source business
>> model. However, in the case of RHEL, I would argue that it *is*
>> technologically superior to its competition, with the possible exception
>> of Solaris. There just isn't another server OS out there that runs on
>> commodity hardware with that level of security, reliability and performance.
> 
> Well . . . there is, but I don't think you're counting other possible
> examples in your comparison (like the BSD Unix variants).  I'll just
> assume you're lumping all Linux distributions together when you say RHEL,
> and not excluding other distributions like Debian and Slackware.

Well ...

1. I've heard good things about BSD, but it's really hard to find
sysadmins for it. It may be more stable than any Linux kernel, but if
you can't find someone to maintain it, it's not going to be useful.

2. No I was *not* lumping all Linux distros together -- I *was*
excluding Debian and Slackware. They aren't as hard to find sysadmins
for as BSD, but they are enough different from Red Hat that there's
still a learning curve. I *meant* Red Hat!

3. I'm surprised nobody defended Windows Server 2003. Just because it's
closed source and expensive doesn't mean it's a bad OS in terms of
reliability, security or performance. Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL,
Ruby, Rails, etc. run just fine on Windows 2003 server
>