Re: Best Linux Distribution

I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments

---

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
To: esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution

I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:

I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:

1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
enough to account for them.

2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
recompile, for instance.

3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
supported by NetBSD.

4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.

I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
with Linux. Linux is too easy.

I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
is too easy.

- Ian

>>> Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..

Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..

--
Until later, Geoffrey

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on
FreeBSD (since both use GCC)?

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
mmiranda(at)americatel(dot)com(dot)sv
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution

I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments

---

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
To: esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution

I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:

I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:

1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
enough to account for them.

2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
recompile, for instance.

3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
supported by NetBSD.

4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.

I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
with Linux. Linux is too easy.

I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
is too easy.

- Ian

>>> Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..

Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..

--
Until later, Geoffrey

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:

>Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on
>FreeBSD (since both use GCC)?
>
>
In general yes. Sometimes they do require some tweaks though.

J

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
>mmiranda(at)americatel(dot)com(dot)sv
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM
>To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
>is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
>OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments
>
>---
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
>To: esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>
>I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
>
>I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
>
>1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
>put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
>enough to account for them.
>
>2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
>on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
>toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
>likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
>recompile, for instance.
>
>3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
>greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
>since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
>because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
>slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
>just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
>bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
>supported by NetBSD.
>
>4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
>
>I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
>with Linux. Linux is too easy.
>
>I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
>is too easy.
>
>- Ian
>
>
>
>>>>Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Patrick Welche wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Any info about NetBSD?
>>>
>>>
>>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
>
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:

>Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on
>FreeBSD (since both use GCC)?
>
>
>
FreeBSD even has support for Linux *binaries.* In general, yes,
software developed on one should work on the other once you satisfy
dependencies.

Especially for something like PostgreSQL... There are a few caveats for
other software but this becomes a bit off-topic. For example, some
games won;t work because they require access to a framebuffer device
which FreeBSD doesn't have.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
>mmiranda(at)americatel(dot)com(dot)sv
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM
>To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
>is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
>OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments
>
>---
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
>To: esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
>
>
>I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
>
>I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
>
>1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
>put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
>enough to account for them.
>
>2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
>on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
>toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
>likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
>recompile, for instance.
>
>3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
>greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
>since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
>because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
>slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
>just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
>bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
>supported by NetBSD.
>
>4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
>
>I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
>with Linux. Linux is too easy.
>
>I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
>is too easy.
>
>- Ian
>
>
>
>>>>Geoffrey <esoteric(at)3times25(dot)net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Patrick Welche wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Any info about NetBSD?
>>>
>>>
>>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
>
>
>