yes it could
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jsusanka Jun 16, 2006 5:34 AM EDT |
any IT manager that is open and trying new technologies and then seeing if they apply to running the business is just doing what they are being paid to do. we all need to have an open mind - to me that is what makes our job fun. I think ubuntu offers the rock solid stability of linux and debian along with the easiness that businesses love to get things up and running. It is so easy to get a dynamic zope/apache website up on ubuntu it's a joke - I highly recommend them for a server - it works great. I also recommend that if you are using for business to buy the support contracts and help the distibution. I like the fact that they have just one version - no enterprise, desktop, profressional, etc etc versions. I think this will help them eventually with enterprise contracts and I can run the same stuff at home, on my desktop at work - etc. |
| devnet Jun 16, 2006 9:35 AM EDT |
I think Ubuntu needs at least 5 more years to become stable enough and reliable enough to even be considered as a main server distribution. They need to prove how they're different from Debian and how they can benefit you as a company...otherwise, they're nothing special and won't make a dent in the server market. To me this article is a bunch of speculative hot air designed to rah rah for Ubuntu (as if we don't have enough of those articles out there). While I'm happy Linux is receiving the attention...I'm not happy that everyone considers Ubuntu to be the 'solve all' Linux distro that is going to save the world from all problems. It's mediocre on the desktop...it sucked for everything I needed to do in my server room and was outperformed in the server room by both CentOS and Slackware. Why should I even consider it? I shouldn't. But all the people cheering want me to hop on the bandwagon with them. Anyone who currently runs Ubuntu on a server for a corporation is just asking for trouble with as many updates and non-necessary software Ubuntu will install with its dependencies. That's why red hat and CentOS are doing so well...sure they might not have dependency resolution...but for a knowledgeable system admin, who cares about dependency resolution? Not me. I'm happy that when I install things, I'm only installing what is needed and I'm not introducing other software that has its own possibility of security flaws. When Ubuntu has more time and reputation in the server market under their belt...maybe. Until then, Debian has the reputation (google uses it in their server farms...not Ubuntu) and is known as a good server distro. |
| jsusanka Jun 16, 2006 9:55 AM EDT |
"That's why red hat and CentOS are doing so well...sure they might not have dependency resolution...but for a knowledgeable system admin, who cares about dependency resolution? Not me. I'm happy that when I install things, I'm only installing what is needed and I'm not introducing other software that has its own possibility of security flaws." doing a server install in ubuntu installs a lot less than redhat,centos,suse - it is bare minimum and does not even install a gui. this is one of the things I like about ubuntu is that it installs only what you want it to and listens on zero ports until you tell it to |
| tuxchick2 Jun 16, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
Both of you have good points. The default minimum Ubuntu installation runs just under 500 megabytes, while CentOS won't weigh in under 800 megabytes without going through a customized installation. Installing X on a server is silly, but you're stuck with it without extra work. I still prefer "real" Debian for important servers because I haven't torture-tested Ubuntu yet, but if they're going to take 3 years or more for the next stable release that's just not going to work. |
| devnet Jun 16, 2006 8:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:doing a server install in ubuntu installs a lot less than redhat,centos,suse - it is bare minimum and does not even install a gui. Really, it depends on your situation. For me, companies are generally concerned about an internal server hitting the external internet...so Ubuntu isn't a choice there...if I need to apt-get my way into system administration, I don't need it. Not to mention that some shops have limited bandwidth and don't want to push things by having an apt server bogging things down while trying to install LAMP. With CentOS, it may be larger for the install, but I get to choose everything I want...I can choose to NOT install X. I can choose to install LAMP, I can choose NOT to install anything...all without putting any strain on my network. I call that handy. Until Ubuntu releases a 4-5 disc set for server, they're not where many a system admin needs to be. Quoting:this is one of the things I like about ubuntu is that it installs only what you want it to and listens on zero ports until you tell it to I get an option to use Security Enhanced Linux with Firewall (the NSA uses SEL packages for their customized Linux they run...I don't think it gets much more secure than that). So, even though my ports are open on CentOS, I'm covered with a robust set of tools designed to prevent entry into my system. Ubuntu doesn't even give you the option to configure a firewall. No services running isn't always a good thing either...it takes me less time to get a CentOS box fully configured and running Apache/Tomcat with Magnolia than it does for me even to get Ubuntu installed and Apache configured with all modules. Reason? Updates, dependencies, etc. I have to wait for my network to download all of these across my dedicated T1. So I wait. Then I wait some more. Then I install CentOS. Then I wait some more. Then I configure CentOS. Then I wait some more. Then I have a full Magnolia install. And I finish getting Ubuntu installed and Apache running on it. Quoting:Installing X on a server is silly, but you're stuck with it without extra work.I agree. I usually deselect X and any graphical POS I can when I install CentOS. I like the shell. I like to boogie :D One other thing for everyone to consider is that Ubuntu doesn't offer i586 or above packages. Performance-wise, they take a hit on this. I can do an i586 optimized install for CentOS right out of the box. If you don't think there is much of a performance dip betweeen i386 and i586, cluster a few MySQL databases and then start benchmarking. Then post back your findings. Until they fix this problem, they'll get their arses handed to them repeatedly. In closing: Contrary to what everyone thinks, I'm not anti Ubuntu. I just DO NOT think it is the Cat's PJ's. I think it's nice for a desktop distro for users who have used Linux for a short while. New users? Never. Server? Not hardly. Debian on the other hand is rock solid. I've run Debian for over 5 years and found it to be absolutely fantastic. Especially fantastic is the option to get many CD's so you don't have to wait around apt-getting your way to setting things up. The bottom line in my experience is Ubuntu isn't there for the Server. Also, from my experience, Ubuntu isn't there with the desktop. There are 3-5 distros that have more polish, performance, and pizazz than it does. They'll always be second rate in my book on the desktop. Let's see if they can fix their mistakes on the Server. Perhaps they might do well...time will tell. |
| grouch Jun 16, 2006 8:57 PM EDT |
devnet: Perhaps you missed this: "In about 15 minutes, the time it takes to install Ubuntu Server Edition, you can have a LAMP server up and ready to go. This feature, exclusive to Ubuntu Server Edition, is available at the time of installation." -- http://www.ubuntu.com/server |
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!