61–70 of 102 posts
Very marketing-buzzword heavy.
Really don't know what to do about 14.04 landing. I maintain a few systems which are in devops territory on top of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, a single desktop machine and a laptop. 12.04 is EOL in 2017 and we plan to replace them next year (we operate a 3 year standard cycle). With the other major distributions moving towards systemd and eventually wayland (that includes the base of Ubuntu: Debian), I'm not sure I really want…
If you don't specifically want software that is available on 14.04 but not 12.04, and you are replacing the machine next year, I'm not sure why you'd bother doing an upgrade.
I upgrade when it stops being convenient to get current versions of the desktop applications I want as backports ( VLC or Gimp for instance).
Does anyone have an experience with OpenStack? How much worse is it than AWS?
In comparison to AWS: The best thing in OS for me is the very flexible network configuration where you can define exactly what your environment looks like. The worst is lack of customised authorization / access control. Unless you need any specific part of AWS integrated into your environment, OS should give you most of the things you need. You can also mix&match services (just watch out where the internal data rates no longer apply).
Red Hat is the largest single contributor to Open Stack[1] IMHO Ubuntu gets a free ride because every distro except Ubuntu has to set up an external CI server in order to get their drivers and changes in. [1] http://activity.openstack.org/dash/releases/
By head count, Red Hat is 10 times the size of Canonical. This means that Canonical would not be expected to show in the graphs you linked to, given the same level of activity averaged per employee. Yet Ubuntu is the distro of choice for OpenStack. That speaks to the strength of the community around OpenStack on Ubuntu, the skill and commitment of the people working on it, and the quality of the experience.
As to the grumble about spinning up an external CI server: you'll be glad to know that Ubuntu is really easy to spin up on bare metal or in VMs, and you don't have to buy licenses ;)
Disclaimer: I work for Canonical, so I am totally biased. I don't work on OpenStack, but I know many of those who do.
Does anyone have an experience with OpenStack? How much worse is it than AWS?
In fact, all communication is done via web API's and there is even a compatibility API that speaks AWS. So if you have scripts that work with AWS, they will most likely work on OpenStack as well.
OpenStack is different in that not only can you choose an OpenStack provider, such as Rackspace, HP and others, but you can also run your own instance of OpenStack. All the software is released under the BSD 2 license. It can be a little tricky to get setup, but there are some projects out there to help get a working environment setup, DevStack in particular is very easy to use: http://devstack.org/
Very marketing-buzzword heavy.
I found the buzzword-laden marketing-speak quite annoying, but we (hackers) are probably not the intended audience. This is probably written for a non-technical decision maker who wouldn't understand anything written at a much lower level of abstraction.
Red Hat is the largest single contributor to Open Stack[1] IMHO Ubuntu gets a free ride because every distro except Ubuntu has to set up an external CI server in order to get their drivers and changes in. [1] http://activity.openstack.org/dash/releases/
The single largest contributor by the metrics you posted . There are other types of contribution, integration and distribution for example, things that Ubuntu has traditionally focused on instead of raw upstream work. By head count, Red Hat is 10 times the size of Canonical. This means that Canonical would not be expected to show in the graphs you linked to, given the same level of activity averaged per employee. Yet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about something new. Forget this idea of a company that produces yet another fucking distro with just enough changes so its not 100% compatible with whatever it's forked from, and then charge for support. How about a company that simply sells support services for an existing, community owned distro like Debian. If it makes sense for that company to donate to the Debian project, and/or hire staff to contribute to…
Huh, I thought I could easily list a dozen companies that will provide commercial support for Debian. In the early 2000s, HP had committed to supporting Debian, but I no longer see it listed on their Linux Support page. I know the european market has a healthy ecosystem of consultant companies that provide support for open source products.
My point was more that this is the type of thing people/companies should be looking for in a Linux support contract, rather than another "services" company rolling it's own Linux distro so they can lock customers in with incompatibility.
We use virtual servers and all of them run different releases of ubuntu and for the life of me I don't understand why they're not running debian. You never start an X session on a server and what admin would want to use Unity anyway so what's the point in using Ubuntu rather than stable debian?