4 ms·

> Please stop using Ubuntu as your base images people! I think Ubuntu images are a symptom of a much more serious disease: Ubuntu usage in general. Ubuntu is

by wtbob 11y ago

> Please stop using Ubuntu as your base images people! I think Ubuntu images are a symptom of a much more serious disease: Ubuntu usage in general. Ubuntu is not really concerned with software freedom (its origin was Debian-plus-proprietary-blobs), nor does it strongly care about privacy (although it can be shamed into doing the right thing), nor does it care terribly much about getting along with everyone else (c.f. Mir vs. Wayland). As a distro for my family, it's fine. But I expect my fellow developers to run something which indicates more technological prowess than does Ubuntu: Debian or Arch or Gentoo or Slackware are all good choices for different reasons.

_Codemonkeyism 11y ago
I've run Ubuntu for some years, mostly because software was newer in Ubuntu than Debian (which I've used before). With One-Service-Per-Docker I think about migrating back to Debian, as I can chose the version of my service myself (with curl if needed) and don't need the newest versions in my base image. I have the feeling with Docker over time Debian might have a comeback.
rdtsc 11y ago
Except that Ubuntu provided a decent Linux on my desktop that is relatively polished to be used by a normal human being. I did more than Debian, Redhat, Mandriva, Gentoo and other could do even though they had a longer head start. Once I run that on my desktop, I don't really want to learn another distro, I'll just use that the server as well. > run something which indicates more technological prowess than does Ubuntu: There one difference between how I develop -- I don't develop to show my technological prowess, in fact when I do that, I start making mistakes and generate complicated and hard to maintain systems.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > Except that Ubuntu provided a decent Linux on my desktop that is relatively polished to be used by a normal human being. They did, and they should be congratulated for that. I like to believe that Debian learnt a hard lesson from its long delay. > Once I run that on my desktop, I don't really want to learn another distro, I'll just use that the server as well. Ubuntu on the server has essentially been Debian unstable-ish. It's not really a case of learning another distro. Your argument would also apply to running OS X Server, and I don't think anyone outside of Cupertino thinks that's a good idea… > There one difference between how I develop -- I don't develop to show my technological prowess If you like, substitute 'competence' for 'prowess.' Running Ubuntu is like running Windows: it's popular; it's not really wrong; it even has advantages; but running Windows doesn't indicate any level of competence. In Bayesian terms, P(competence | Ubuntu) < P(competence | ~Ubuntu).
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    > Your argument would also apply to running OS X Server, And it does! Old work had a few in house servers with OS X. If it was free, we'd see a lot more of it, I am convinced. > If you like, substitute 'competence' for 'prowess.' Running Ubuntu is like running Windows: it's popular; Isn't the ability to quickly ship a stable, reliable product that customers are happy to pay for, a better sign of competence than say picking Slack or FreeBSD for server for now good reason except to show competence? The question is who is the show of competence for? Other developers, customers, management? I can see developers boasting who knows how to configure and run obscure distros and use exotic functional languages and that's cool. I was just saying after a while you realize that show of prowess is not what is important.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > Isn't the ability to quickly ship a stable, reliable product that customers are happy to pay for, a better sign of competence than say picking Slack or FreeBSD for server for now good reason except to show competence? Sure! What I'm saying is that if someone is unable or unwilling to run something other than Ubuntu then I suspect he is less likely to be able to build that stable, reliable product in the first place. It's like how I suspect I'm likely to have a better meal if the cook prepares it from fresh ingredients than if everything comes pre-made off of a truck.
falsedan 11y ago
WARNING TERRIBLE NERD JOKE APPROACHING Hey, what does 'Ubuntu' mean anyway? It's a South African word meaning, "doesn't know how to install Debian"

by wtbob 11y ago

_Codemonkeyism 11y ago

I've run Ubuntu for some years, mostly because software was newer in Ubuntu than Debian (which I've used before). With One-Service-Per-Docker I think about migrating back to Debian, as I can chose the version of my service myself (with curl if needed) and don't need the newest versions in my base image. I have the feeling with Docker over time Debian might have a comeback.

rdtsc 11y ago

Except that Ubuntu provided a decent Linux on my desktop that is relatively polished to be used by a normal human being. I did more than Debian, Redhat, Mandriva, Gentoo and other could do even though they had a longer head start. Once I run that on my desktop, I don't really want to learn another distro, I'll just use that the server as well. > run something which indicates more technological prowess than does Ubuntu: There one difference between how I develop -- I don't develop to show my technological prowess, in fact when I do that, I start making mistakes and generate complicated and hard to maintain systems.

wtbob 11y ago
> Except that Ubuntu provided a decent Linux on my desktop that is relatively polished to be used by a normal human being. They did, and they should be congratulated for that. I like to believe that Debian learnt a hard lesson from its long delay. > Once I run that on my desktop, I don't really want to learn another distro, I'll just use that the server as well. Ubuntu on the server has essentially been Debian unstable-ish. It's not really a case of learning another distro. Your argument would also apply to running OS X Server, and I don't think anyone outside of Cupertino thinks that's a good idea… > There one difference between how I develop -- I don't develop to show my technological prowess If you like, substitute 'competence' for 'prowess.' Running Ubuntu is like running Windows: it's popular; it's not really wrong; it even has advantages; but running Windows doesn't indicate any level of competence. In Bayesian terms, P(competence | Ubuntu) < P(competence | ~Ubuntu).
- rdtsc 11y ago
  > Your argument would also apply to running OS X Server, And it does! Old work had a few in house servers with OS X. If it was free, we'd see a lot more of it, I am convinced. > If you like, substitute 'competence' for 'prowess.' Running Ubuntu is like running Windows: it's popular; Isn't the ability to quickly ship a stable, reliable product that customers are happy to pay for, a better sign of competence than say picking Slack or FreeBSD for server for now good reason except to show competence? The question is who is the show of competence for? Other developers, customers, management? I can see developers boasting who knows how to configure and run obscure distros and use exotic functional languages and that's cool. I was just saying after a while you realize that show of prowess is not what is important.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > Isn't the ability to quickly ship a stable, reliable product that customers are happy to pay for, a better sign of competence than say picking Slack or FreeBSD for server for now good reason except to show competence? Sure! What I'm saying is that if someone is unable or unwilling to run something other than Ubuntu then I suspect he is less likely to be able to build that stable, reliable product in the first place. It's like how I suspect I'm likely to have a better meal if the cook prepares it from fresh ingredients than if everything comes pre-made off of a truck.

falsedan 11y ago

WARNING TERRIBLE NERD JOKE APPROACHING Hey, what does 'Ubuntu' mean anyway? It's a South African word meaning, "doesn't know how to install Debian"