… for the sysadmin who would much rather be running Windows NT 4.
A month after we all agreed to standardise on Zope as our content management system, One of my clients (for some inexplicable reason), has decided to standardise on RHEL3 as the company-wide Linux platform. That would be just great were it not for the fact that no Red-Hat distribution ever (even Fedora) has ever supported any version of Zope, or endorses the use of the Python programming language for anything other than their own up2date rpm management utilities.
Just what is it about RHEL that companies value? If you ask the IT manager, they will normally say ’stability’ - but what exactly does that mean? I run Gentoo Linux on my servers which is (allegedly) the least stable linux distribution. On the whole, I would say the RHEL servers are no more reliable than the Gentoo servers (assuming that both are well-managed). What red-hat mean by stability is that they tend not to update packages for a particular distribution release, only apply internally developed patches as bugs are fixed.
After a few years of running RHEL, you could have a GNU/Linux operating system with most of it’s major packages in a non-standard configuration. If you had been running Gentoo, FreeBSD or Debian most of your packages would be as their authors originally intended. When yor distro is EOL’d, and you have to migrate to a new server, the chances are that your applications would be just as broken as if you had run a more advanced disribution.
I’m not so naive that I cannot see the value in a very stable (in the sense of lack of change) distribution; but those benefits are utterly voided by wanting to run a package like Zope, which by sheer force of it’s development community is a rapidly developing tool. In order to install Zope on RHEL you need custom compile a large number of packages, and if running Zope was the server’s primary function, you have now lost the benefit of your RHEL subscription for all but the basic components of the server’s operating system.
In my opinion, people who like RHEL would probably be much happier running Windows 2003 server. For everybody else, I suggest considering wether you value stability (lack of change) more than stability (reliability), and if not consider less sluggish distribtions.

