3 ms·

Newer packages, sane LTS policy, easier to get non-free firmware/drivers going (as in, the default CD comes with them), seemingly more support from third partie

by q3k 11y ago

Newer packages, sane LTS policy, easier to get non-free firmware/drivers going (as in, the default CD comes with them), seemingly more support from third parties. They're both pretty awful due to their automagic(al tendency to break down in mysterious ways), but if I have to choose, I'll go with Ubuntu. Disclaimer: My main box runs Gentoo and I own no Mac machines, if that changes anything in your vision of Ubuntu users.

zeveb 11y ago
> Newer packages, sane LTS policy Those two are in opposition: Debian (generally) has new-enough packages, but it's stable, which is what one wants on a server system. Meanwhile, Debian's LTS story is better than Ubuntu's: just upgrade, and know it will work. > easier to get non-free firmware/drivers But how often is that needed for server systems? And of course, there're the ethical & engineering issues with using proprietary software in the first place. > seemingly more support from third parties There is that, but if we all wanted more support from third parties, we'd have stuck with Windows, no? > They're both pretty awful due to their automagic(al tendency to break down in mysterious ways) I've not experienced that with Debian in a long time. I used to have issues with Ubuntu, but I don't think that they were generally all that bad. Better than what I used to experience with Macs and Windows back in the 90s, anyway.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  "stable". "new-enough" This is a leading word. As is a lot of that paragraph. For many tools some companies use, Debian certainly is NOT "new-enough" with many package choices. Nor is Ubuntu inherently NOT "stable" - and still trails a little behind the leading edge. As for upgrades, I've watched many a server upgrade seamlessly from 10.04 LTS to 12.04 to 14.04. I'm sure there can be and has been many a person, many a thread who've not had seamless experiences. But the same applies for Debian - heck, even the release manual has a section entitled "How To Recover A Broken System" with reference to system upgrades. "non-free firmware/drivers" How often needed? In this article alone, IPMI, BMC, RAID, BIOS. "And of course, there're the ethical & engineering issues" This is a derailment. What exactly are the ethical issues for a closed source company in using other proprietary software? I'm by no means an Ubuntu fanatic. It has its share of issues, absolutely. I have everything from FreeBSD to Debian to RHEL to OmniOS to administer, and they all have strengths and weaknesses.
scott_karana 11y ago
Drivers are definitely a big deal on desktops, but for servers?...
- q3k 11y ago
  There's a lot of exotic hardware on servers (enterprise RAID controllers, converged and 10GbE NICs, SAN HBAs, IPMI configuration utilities...).

by q3k 11y ago

zeveb 11y ago

> Newer packages, sane LTS policy Those two are in opposition: Debian (generally) has new-enough packages, but it's stable, which is what one wants on a server system. Meanwhile, Debian's LTS story is better than Ubuntu's: just upgrade, and know it will work. > easier to get non-free firmware/drivers But how often is that needed for server systems? And of course, there're the ethical & engineering issues with using proprietary software in the first place. > seemingly more support from third parties There is that, but if we all wanted more support from third parties, we'd have stuck with Windows, no? > They're both pretty awful due to their automagic(al tendency to break down in mysterious ways) I've not experienced that with Debian in a long time. I used to have issues with Ubuntu, but I don't think that they were generally all that bad. Better than what I used to experience with Macs and Windows back in the 90s, anyway.

FireBeyond 11y ago
"stable". "new-enough" This is a leading word. As is a lot of that paragraph. For many tools some companies use, Debian certainly is NOT "new-enough" with many package choices. Nor is Ubuntu inherently NOT "stable" - and still trails a little behind the leading edge. As for upgrades, I've watched many a server upgrade seamlessly from 10.04 LTS to 12.04 to 14.04. I'm sure there can be and has been many a person, many a thread who've not had seamless experiences. But the same applies for Debian - heck, even the release manual has a section entitled "How To Recover A Broken System" with reference to system upgrades. "non-free firmware/drivers" How often needed? In this article alone, IPMI, BMC, RAID, BIOS. "And of course, there're the ethical & engineering issues" This is a derailment. What exactly are the ethical issues for a closed source company in using other proprietary software? I'm by no means an Ubuntu fanatic. It has its share of issues, absolutely. I have everything from FreeBSD to Debian to RHEL to OmniOS to administer, and they all have strengths and weaknesses.

scott_karana 11y ago

Drivers are definitely a big deal on desktops, but for servers?...

q3k 11y ago
There's a lot of exotic hardware on servers (enterprise RAID controllers, converged and 10GbE NICs, SAN HBAs, IPMI configuration utilities...).