11–20 of 21 posts
For 24MB more than Alpine, you get the stability and long term support from Ubuntu. I think a third of the size difference are glibc and muslc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s this? Please explain to the uninitiated
It's a reference to the sci-fi book The three body problem by Liu Cixin[1]. In that ta mysterious game about an alien planet where its population can be dehydrated to survive harsh conditions which could last millenia, and then re-hydrated when the conditions are right. Although i think the terms hydrate-dehydrate are not unheard of in tech stacks for example in a django REST framework called tastypie to denote seria…
When Alpine doesn't cut it, I use Debian's "slim" docker images. 55MB size. This minimal ubuntu is slightly smaller, but I don't see anything else novel about it - why should I be excited?
That would be the real question: considering Ubuntu is just a Debian fork, what is the benefit of using Ubuntu on a server?
> The unminimize tool lets you ‘rehydrate’ your image into a familiar Ubuntu server package set, suitable for command line interaction. Nice 'Three body problem' reference they've sneaked in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be the real question: considering Ubuntu is just a Debian fork, what is the benefit of using Ubuntu on a server?
Ubuntu Server comes with a bunch of nice quality-of-life improvements that make using it more pleasant than using stock Debian, and you get the predictability of Ubuntu's standardized release cadence (a new release every 6 months on the dot, alongside longer-lived LTS versions).
It's not your job but what do you feel are some of the best QOL improvements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu Server comes with a bunch of nice quality-of-life improvements that make using it more pleasant than using stock Debian, and you get the predictability of Ubuntu's standardized release cadence (a new release every 6 months on the dot, alongside longer-lived LTS versions).
As someone who runs a tiny VPS with stock Debian, I'm interested (but skeptical). It's not your job but what do you feel are some of the best QOL improvements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu Server comes with a bunch of nice quality-of-life improvements that make using it more pleasant than using stock Debian, and you get the predictability of Ubuntu's standardized release cadence (a new release every 6 months on the dot, alongside longer-lived LTS versions).
As someone who runs a tiny VPS with stock Debian, I'm interested (but skeptical). It's not your job but what do you feel are some of the best QOL improvements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be the real question: considering Ubuntu is just a Debian fork, what is the benefit of using Ubuntu on a server?
Ubuntu Server comes with a bunch of nice quality-of-life improvements that make using it more pleasant than using stock Debian, and you get the predictability of Ubuntu's standardized release cadence (a new release every 6 months on the dot, alongside longer-lived LTS versions).
The latest and greatest package is not so much beneficial in production, and e.g. with containers you do not even have to bother much about it since all you probably care for is kernel and container runtime updates.
What I still would be interested in though is if there is any technical benefit from Ubuntu server? Something which is not easily resolved by configuration management or a simple "apt-get install"?