Live data from Hacker News

Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

novell.com

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#11
post #10

I just did a quick survey of seven coworkers who are all familiar with the Linux, in order of likelihood of deploying in a commercial environment, the three distros that they indicated would recommend: o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform. o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be ab…

I have zero experience in deploying Linux in a commercial environment, only home / hobbyist usage; but I wonder why Ubuntu is ahead of Debian? (I assume we're not talking desktops here.)

Maybe commercial support is easier to get? That would be a biggie for a business. Possibly more up to date packages? I am just speculating though.

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#12
post #10

I just did a quick survey of seven coworkers who are all familiar with the Linux, in order of likelihood of deploying in a commercial environment, the three distros that they indicated would recommend: o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform. o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be ab…

I have zero experience in deploying Linux in a commercial environment, only home / hobbyist usage; but I wonder why Ubuntu is ahead of Debian? (I assume we're not talking desktops here.)

Enterprise linuxes avoid many of the Debian ideals like the plague. On Debian, you are required to make a gajillion choices and to some extent are responsible for piecing together a competent system yourself; on RHEL and Ubuntu, you make a few, and retain the power to drill down and make choices, but you always start with the same solid template (roughly)

Debian is great for one or two machines, but based on my experience with it I can't imagine using it for 10,000 boxes

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#13
I cannot help but wonder what portion of the 95% domination Novell contributes. I cannot help but suspect this is a case of a tiny nobody pretending he's best buds with the 800-lb gorilla that doesn't even know he's there.

I mean, sure, it adds to 95%- but who's to say Novell isn't only 3% by itself?

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#14

I cannot help but wonder what portion of the 95% domination Novell contributes. I cannot help but suspect this is a case of a tiny nobody pretending he's best buds with the 800-lb gorilla that doesn't even know he's there. I mean, sure, it adds to 95%- but who's to say Novell isn't only 3% by itself?

Ironically I read this as "We've got Ubuntu and RedHat/Fedora/CentOS; we don't need Novell."

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#16
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have zero experience in deploying Linux in a commercial environment, only home / hobbyist usage; but I wonder why Ubuntu is ahead of Debian? (I assume we're not talking desktops here.)

Enterprise linuxes avoid many of the Debian ideals like the plague. On Debian, you are required to make a gajillion choices and to some extent are responsible for piecing together a competent system yourself; on RHEL and Ubuntu, you make a few, and retain the power to drill down and make choices, but you always start with the same solid template (roughly) Debian is great for one or two machines, but based on my exper…

I mostly see thing the other way: for a machine or two, especially a desktop, Ubuntu is great. It made a bunch of decisions for me in advance that are mostly good, and I can override them if I need to. For a datacenter full of servers, I probably have a very specific configuration in mind and don't want anything extra. Debian seems most suited to that scenario.

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#18

I just did a quick survey of seven coworkers who are all familiar with the Linux, in order of likelihood of deploying in a commercial environment, the three distros that they indicated would recommend: o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform. o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be ab…

We recently started to migrate a number of CentOS servers to Ubuntu LTS. We found that stability to be on par with CentOS, with the primary advantage of Ubuntu being that we have more up to date packages in the main distribution. We have a number of people running Ubuntu on their workstations which was another benefit of "unifying" the underlying platforms. BTW, yes apt is awesome

Are you using Canonical's Landscape thing? It seems that with every release they actually make something useful for the server deployments, not just fluff features.

Re: Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro

#19

I just did a quick survey of seven coworkers who are all familiar with the Linux, in order of likelihood of deploying in a commercial environment, the three distros that they indicated would recommend: o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform. o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be ab…

This is anecdotal evidence but in western Europe[1] Ubuntu Server seems to be vastly more popular than either CentOS or RHEL. [1] With the exception of Germany, where SUSE Enterprise appears to be most popular.

in the German startup area it's all about Ubuntu/Debian and maybe some centos/gentoos.

I guess only the big old customers stick with SuSE. I don't know a single person anymore using SuSE…

I've recently helped to install a new server farm for a media company. We've choosen Ubuntu 10.04 LTS + chef (opscode) + REE + kvm.

Post reply on HN