[clug] RHEL - Options for a dev environment? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
darryl at snakegully.nu
Mon Jul 14 00:19:44 GMT 2008
Roppola, Antti - BRS wrote:
> Hi all,
> We're going to be moving our web applications environment to RHEL.
> RedHat Desktop (workstation option)
> A lot cheaper than RHEL and thus more palatable for many developer
> instances that RHEL itself. Should
> be a close match for RHEL as far as libc and the like are concerned. The
> workstation edition appears to
> come with Apache and the like (less clear on what is *not* included).
> While it costs (per system), the price
> isn't too bad and we get some level of support and updates.
> On paper, it should be a good match for RHEL. Is free, but we'd not have
> any support options (not that
> we've really ever needed them for sandbox systems in the past). I'd
> assume the updates would be a good
> match for RHEL too.
I think you've chosen from these two yourself. If you're not going to
get any value from the support, why not go the free option?
Doing development on the server OS (or close) helps with testing, but
there is a danger of becoming too tied to vendor-specific features and
configurations, which could limit your flexibility to move if the
current OS isn't suiting your purposes.
Current build tools should let you create software that can configure
itself to run on many different unix-like platforms. Using a development
platform that is different to the deployment platform is a good way to
ensure you're using generic, more portable OS features. Then if you ever
do decide to move your servers to Suse or Debian or whatever, the
software has more chance of being able to handle it without needing changes.
So I don't think the devel platform is critical. It is of course
critical to do pre-release testing on systems configured as closely as
possible to the live servers.
More information about the linux