[Catalyst] Ubuntu / Catalyst

[Peter Edwards]

Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.
For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have
corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development
platforms.
However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that quite
shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform.
As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own PERL5LIB
dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering
standardised live applications you can roll out and support.

Regards, Peter
Dragonstaff Limited  http://www.dragonstaff.com   Business IT Consultancy

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jones [mailto:ra.jones at dpw.clara.co.uk] 
Sent: 10 November 2007 18:43
To: The elegant MVC web framework
Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Ubuntu / Catalyst

Matt S Trout wrote:
> 6.06 was the last one that was serious production quality.
>
> 7.04 has a bastardized fstab setup, a bleeding-edge init replacement, and
> a host of other not-really-unix-or-linux-or-anything-else-but-ubuntu-isms.
>
> But hell, it's your platform and that's just my opinion. None of our
servers
> are going past 6.06 though :)
>
>   
I've played with 6.06, 6.10, 7.04 and 7.10 versions on VMware - the 7.xx 
versions both get 'stuck' at the 'Running local boot scripts 
(/etc/rc.local)' output, which happens after the first login prompt, and 
requires a keyboard entry to 'push' it along. I don't know if this is a 
VM issue though, as I've not run either as production.

Any thoughts on CentOS 5 for production quality?
--
Richard Jones