Unless Ubuntu can offer the stability...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Sep 02, 2009 10:01 AM EDT |
Unless Ubuntu can offer the stability and reliability of RHEL or SLES they have little chance of making serious inroads into the server market. So far I just don't see it except for, perhaps, the LTS versions. 9.10 is not going to be LTS. I can't see deploying a server OS that would only be supported for 18 months no matter how good it is. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 02, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
Agreed, but I think they should push those LTS versions as "Enterprise" and the others as some kind of testing, or split into two camps like Red Hat/Fedora or SUSE/OpenSUSE. |
| ABCC Sep 02, 2009 3:42 PM EDT |
The LTS releases are supported for longer than 18 months, c'n'p'd from their site: Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Server: Released April 2008 and maintained until April 2013 – ideal for large deployments So it's 5 years of support and they offer some sort of a guarantee of being able to upgrade provided you wanted/needed to every 18 months. Seems like a good offer really. As for calling it LTS instead of Enterprise... not sure on that one. Their marketing ploy seems to be to win as many converts with their Desktop so they 'sell' the idea to their employers. By not claiming to be 'Enterprise' and keeping the distro up to date they've pulled off the first part of the stunt. By now there are quite a few experienced Ubuntu admins, some of whom will work in IT and perhaps be considering how they can shift more of their work onto an OS they like using. Not exactly the 'Enterprise' sales channel as we know it but who knows, they may well be able to pull it off. |
| caitlyn Sep 02, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
@ABCC: The problem is that the Server releases aren't Enterprise. They are the regular old 18 month supported versions which will not be acceptable to most enterprise IT managers. My point is that the server or enterprise or whatever version should be the LTS version. Right now it isn't. |
| herzeleid Sep 02, 2009 6:32 PM EDT |
@caitlyin - the LTS server releases are enterprise. Who told you they weren't? I've deployed quite a few 8.04 LTS servers and they have been rock solid. We've even started using it here at a fortune 100 company. It's maintained until 2013 for free, and enterprise support available on a system by system basis as desired. Sure, some vendors, like oracle, haven't come around yet, but ubuntu LTS server makes a compelling case for generic unix server tasks. Setting up something like a mail server with domain key signing and spam/virus quarantine is a walk in the park, just a breeze to set up on ubuntu server. Easier to manage IMHO than either RHEL or SLES, both of which we also have deployed here. But then again, that's just my view as a professional unix sys admin :/ |
| caitlyn Sep 02, 2009 6:46 PM EDT |
@ herzeleid: You misunderstood me. Ubuntu is marketing standard (non-LTS) releases as server editions. That's my complaint. I never said LTS is not enterprise quality. I don't agree that Ubuntu is easier to manage than RHEL, particularly if you have a Satellite Server, which is fantastic for large enterprise automated management. Oh, and yeah, I'm a professional UNIX admin as well... |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 02, 2009 7:16 PM EDT |
I think anybody who's comfortable with the age of the packages in RHEL would be equally comfortable in Ubuntu's LTS on the server. Remember, Fedora isn't just a desktop OS. It also functions on the server, and it's got a six-month cycle just like Ubuntu. But for those of us who are a lot more cautious, Ubuntu is really pushing the LTS -- currently 8.04 -- as its "enterprise" server release. As I've said many times recently, I'm still running 8.04 LTS on my main laptop, and since for me this is a critical production machine that needs to NOT have problems, I've stuck with 8.04, especially given the issues lately with Intel video, as well as the excellent wireless capability I've enjoyed for awhile now. While I'd like OO.o 3.1, I'm OK with 2.4, and I added Flash 10 (it's 9 in the repo) because 9 was killing Firefox in some cases. I have Adobe AIR and TweetDeck on here, but I'm not crazy about it, so I don't use it. Right now I'm also OK with Firefox 3.0.x, so there's not much incentive for me to upgrade. Maybe when 9.10 comes out I'll feel differently and get back on the six-month schedule, but I do remember waiting for this LTS release and figuring I'd use it for a year. Guess I'm a few months over that right now ... I'm sure there's plenty of hardware out there that can upgrade every six months and not have problems, but for this 2002-era Toshiba laptop, it's pretty much a crapshoot with every upgrade. Hence I avoid them. |
| herzeleid Sep 02, 2009 7:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ubuntu is marketing standard (non-LTS) releases as server editions. That's my complaint. I never said LTS is not enterprise quality.Ah - well I suppose it's good to have the choice. For important productions servers you would be well advised to run LTS server, but there might be some who don't mind looking at a non-LTS release like 9.10, e.g. for dev/test or if there are some brand new whiz-bang features that you just really gotta have now, that are only in the new release. Quoting:I don't agree that Ubuntu is easier to manage than RHEL, particularly if you have a Satellite Server, which is fantastic for large enterprise automated management.I'm sure that's fantastic, but I think you're going to see some pretty fantastic things from canonical too. Don't count them out just yet. |
| caitlyn Sep 02, 2009 7:52 PM EDT |
I don't count Canonical out. I'll also admit a pro-Red Hat bias which comes from having worked there. I know who's behind the support offerings. Canonical will have a very hard time making inroads into the Red Hat dominated enterprise server market. The enterprise desktop is another matter entirely and there Ubuntu LTS is a superior offering IMHO. |
| jdixon Sep 02, 2009 11:13 PM EDT |
> The enterprise desktop is another matter entirely and there Ubuntu LTS is a superior offering IMHO. Agreed. And while the support contracts on desktops are probably slim in comparison to server contracts, the volume can easily make up for the lower profit margin. I think Red Hat has missed the boat in this area. Both Novell and Canonical have better desktop offerings than they do. And, as a Red Hat shareholder, I'm not particularly pleased about it, though I with only 15 shares I doubt my opinion matters to them all that much. |
| tuxchick Sep 03, 2009 12:34 AM EDT |
Red Hat's target market is narrow, while Canonical is going after a much wider customer base-- SOHO, hobbyists, home users, early adopter, noobs, server and desktop. They're making all the right enterprise moves, getting certified apps and making OEM deals. If they get some actual quality control going they'll be a force to reckon with on several fronts. |
| caitlyn Sep 03, 2009 1:03 AM EDT |
@tuxchick: I agree with what you've posted here but that if in your last sentence is an awfully big if. The quality control issues have been my main complaint with Ubuntu. Many of the bugs I've complained about were blindingly obvious and should have been caught before release. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!