Without going into specifics, the medium-largish enterprises I referenced in the database thread looking to migrate off of Oracle onto PostgreSQL already did same w.r.t. Linux and decided on RHEL. Indmemnity and support were requisite so options that did not offer serious corporate backed support were excluded. They looked at Cannical and Ubuntu but decided it was too buggy. Makes you wonder how badly they were being gouged by Oracle that RHEL would be so attractive. I'd not checked in on them for some months/years and was about blown away at RHEL's 6.0 pricing for even minimal self support.

Hence the reason for the footprint of RHEL in corporate infrastructure.

There's always been a reluctance to adopt if otherwise.

Ah, but wouldn't it be funny if [some/many of] those companies opted to migrate to PostgreSQL running on Oracle's very own (Redhat clone) "Unbreakable Linux"?

I understand that Oracle charges considerably less for Enterprise support on their distro than RH does

I here how great debian but when I installed apache I was shocked that they defeated the big fix that apache did after they took over the NCSA project. when NCSA managed the project they put all the directoritives in 3 config files and apache took over and did the smart idea and put them all in 1 config file but they did leave the other too for historic reasonas and user preference I guess. But I was shocked when debian divided into many config files again. So CentOS Is sill my vote

Breaking out config files is nice when you're running a hosting set up so you can tweak configs on a per cu basis.

Yes, but given Oracle's habit of suing FOSS out of existence (over software that's GPL in the first place), Oracle *anything* (even if open source) shouldn't be used by FOSS-savvy users. At least not if Oracle is going to sue you for it. And who knows what kind of proprietary add-ons Oracle uses on its kernel and apps that can very easily be considered GPL violations.

I agree with the amount of code Red Hat has contributed to FOSS. Even if you think RHEL has a hefty price tag, there's not only CentOS but also, to a lesser extent, Fedora. Fedora *is* also a Red Hat project, and it's 100% free and open source with *no* price tag. Oracle, in contrast, wouldn't dare do such a thing. They would *always* exploit FOSS for money, and they seem to have a good time ripping FOSS off.

Centos

I'm a contractor and get to travel the country to work on Linux based networks and servers, and the *most* often seen OS is CentOS by far.

Redhat is the biggest linux company in the world, so, it makes sense to use a distro based off of the company most likely to be around in the future. imho.

Ubuntu LTS, it's practically Debian with more updated packages... Though I haven't tried Debian itself!

Used to use Slackware on my server, but it was always a pain to update! Couldn't beat its stability though!

I would just like everyone to know that I am exercising extreme self-restraint at this moment in time.

yeah, sorry, I probably should try Debian before I come out with blind statements like that, my bad

I feel relieved that finally I got the chance to vote slackware my favorite distro. I missed this poll last year and I don't want to miss it again. Thanks for the email reminder

Scientific Linux not considered? As I understand it it's a RHEL clone; so it's like CentOS but with a professional support team. If I was running enterprise servers i'd be looking at it.

But then i know very little about these things..

Scientific Linux has been added.

--jeremy

Debian testing (a.k.a. Squeeze at this moment), on the verge of being bleeding edge and pretty much...stable, based on my everyday experience.

My vote goes to Slackware for servers. The combination of package management that facilitates custom configuration, a policy of staying close to the "vanilla" standards, defaulting to a non GUI run mode, and rock solid stability make for one hell of a server distribution.

For me is Ubuntu its more stable now.