71–80 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you run a GUI on a server in the first place?
"I maintain a few systems which are in devops territory on top of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, a single desktop machine and a laptop ." To quote myself...
It's not really logical to judge whether or not something has improved over the last 2 years if you're willfully avoiding most of the changes made in the last 2 years.
Does anyone have an experience with OpenStack? How much worse is it than AWS?
In terms of jumping in and getting started, AWS can be daunting, but it's not really that difficult to spin up an instance. OpenStack requires you to provision hardware and install a lot of different services, and architect how you want those services to be configured. It's not all that easy to get going (even with Juju, RDO, devstack, etc.). Both have a confusing array of names, so it's not always clear what part is what (ec2 vs nova, iam vs keystone, s3 vs swift/glance, ebs vs cinder, etc.), and not everything is fleshed out yet with OpenStack. I guess you could call it a work in progress. Actually, you could probably say the same with AWS, but it's much more mature.
OpenStack's biggest selling points at this point are that it's ultimately cheaper (in terms of opex) running your own cloud if you're at any kind of scale, but AWS saves you a lot up front (in terms of capex). OpenStack doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor and you can swap out parts like the hypervisor if you decide you want ESX or Xen over KVM. Unless you're using spot instances on EC2, AWS can be a lot more expensive (it would take only a few months to pay off a server if you're paying On Demand prices).
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?
The only major glitch I had was hitting this bug where external debs (like Chrome, Dropbox, etc.) won't install in software center: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+b... Luckily they just fixed it, so the official release shouldn't have issues.
I really hope we get a contender for the linux servers space. Maybe it will be Canonical, maybe not, but having Red Hat/CentOS everywhere (in new deployments at least) is starting to tire me.
Ya standardization sucks. I miss having to rewrite scripts for every pet Linux distro the admin decided to use.
I'm talking about having all the sysadmin jobs in my area using Linux as a synonym for Red Hat Linux.
I really hope we get a contender for the linux servers space. Maybe it will be Canonical, maybe not, but having Red Hat/CentOS everywhere (in new deployments at least) is starting to tire me.
Take a look at SuSE. They're ridiculously quiet, but I gather from their employees that they are pretty much lazer-focused on serving business needs and thus are doing well as a company.
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?
Surely you do not install X on a server.... I don't get your comment
Until now I agreed and have used Ubuntu for several years. I was however taken by surprise by how out of the mainstream Ubuntu seemed to security folks when Heartbleed was being identified and it's fix promulgated. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7592244 It left me wondering if Redhat's contributions to the security community give it a leg up. Any "cloud platform of choice" needs to be a first tier security plat…
"Why?" you might ask. Well, TBH, a lot of it is just familiarity - I've been using RH based distros since the Red Hat 5.2 days, so it's what I know already. But more to the point, it just works. I haven't felt any pain using Fedora, CentOS and their ilk, that has ever compelled me to go looking for a different solution. And that's even more true for servers, where I don't care about prepackaged video codecs or sound or anything.
The one big thing that everyone has always touted as the edge that Debian/Ubuntu have over RH systems, is apt. But after having used Ubuntu for 2 years now, I still haven't found any regard in which is apt is particularly better than yum. Yeah, yum used to be dog slow, but that hasn't been a problem in ages. And I don't know about you, but it still annoys me that I need one command, yum, to both search for packages and install them on CentOS/RHEL/Fedora, but I need apt-cache and apt-get to do the same thing on Ubuntu.
Anyway, props to the Ubuntu folks for the release. I do lean towards Red Hat derived distros, but I won't say that Ubuntu is bad or anything.
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?
Surely you do not install X on a server.... I don't get your comment