3 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by zeveb 11y ago

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.