81–90 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely you do not install X on a server.... I don't get your comment
Aren't those the big selling points of Ubuntu - graphics drivers and unity? Both of which as you say are irrelevant on a server, I agree.
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?
ubuntu's release cycle is quite different from debian. If you want more recent versions software, but with firmer guarantees concerning support than testing or unstable, ubuntu is a good choice. Having said that for many of our servers we use debian stable, because stability trumps latest-and-greatest.
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?
It sounds like (?) Debian has tried to put those days behind it. But sysadmins of a certain vintage will always remember when Debian allowed itself to languish. Ubuntu, meanwhile, has maintained a very good track record with regard to timely updates and keeping LTS packages patched, etc.
Whose choice? Not mine... not that I have anything in particular against Ubuntu (in fact, I'm on an Ubuntu system as I write this, because it's our corporate standard desktop here), but I still prefer Red Hat based distros, whether it's RHEL, CentOS, Fedora or what-have-you? "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 k…
apt 1.0 in Ubuntu now contains an `apt` binary, which means this is finally fixed! See also: http://mvogt.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/apt-1-0/
Whose choice? Not mine... not that I have anything in particular against Ubuntu (in fact, I'm on an Ubuntu system as I write this, because it's our corporate standard desktop here), but I still prefer Red Hat based distros, whether it's RHEL, CentOS, Fedora or what-have-you? "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 k…
My employer used RHEL on its servers (via a managed hosting service) for about a year, and it left a bad taste in my mouth, especially because RHEL5 was still on Python 2.4, and I needed a newer Python for some things. Sure, I was able to install a newer Python in /opt/python2.5 and move on. But when we left the managed hosting service and it was time for me to choose the OS for our next servers, I went with Ubuntu, because I knew it would have newer software, including (by then) Python 2.6. Another factor, to be sure, is that I've been using Debian and Ubuntu sporadically since Debian 1.1 or 1.2 in 1996. So Ubuntu was quite comfortable for me. The same factors probably figure in other admins' decisions too.
No argument from me about yum versus apt; they both do the job. Actually, these days I think that Debian (and by extension Ubuntu) overreaches in some ways, with Debconf and automatic startup of services after installation, whereas the Red Hat distros leave configuration and service startup after initial installation to the admin. So there's no clear winner; they're just different.
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?
There was a period, including the time Ubuntu launched and got popular, that Debian was infamously slow to update stable. Along came Ubuntu with a clockwork-like release cycle (every six months IIRC) and up-to-date packages, even in LTS. (In fact the Ubuntu elevator pitch, as far as I was concerned ~10 years ago, was "Debian packaging but with regular releases.") It sounds like (?) Debian has tried to put those days…
Whose choice? Not mine... not that I have anything in particular against Ubuntu (in fact, I'm on an Ubuntu system as I write this, because it's our corporate standard desktop here), but I still prefer Red Hat based distros, whether it's RHEL, CentOS, Fedora or what-have-you? "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 k…
That said, I appreciate how much the OS has improved since I first gave "Breezy Badger" a spin a few years ago, and Ubuntu is the obvious choice when I recommend an alternative OS to my non-tech savvy acquaintances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya standardization sucks. I miss having to rewrite scripts for every pet Linux distro the admin decided to use.
Having (or better, limiting yourself to) a single vendor is not standardization at all, in my opinion. I'm not talking about having a single vendor in a single company at a certain point in time - that's good, doing differently is hard to manage (since usually the sysadmin team is really too small). I'm talking about having all the sysadmin jobs in my area using Linux as a synonym for Red Hat Linux.
It's the only standardization that you're going to get in enterprise Linux and it's no different than targeting Windows.
> I'm talking about having all the sysadmin jobs in my area using Linux as a synonym for Red Hat Linux.
And the problem with that is?