6 ms·

Can't really come up with any reason, if you're happy with CentOS you should probably keep using CentOS. I just started out with Ubuntu but realised that Debia

Can't really come up with any reason, if you're happy with CentOS you should probably keep using CentOS. I just started out with Ubuntu but realised that Debian seems to have more control over their packages and have a much more stable ecosystem which I value. Also .deb packages always seem to be available for basically any software distributed for linux and why make life hard?

pcnix 9y ago
Ubuntu is debian based, and works on .deb packages. Just nitpicking, nothing else to add.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Yeah, if it didn't get wrecked every other upgrade, I'd probably still be on Ubuntu. But talking to the Ubuntu Washington people this past weekend, its still an ongoing problem. Comparatively, here I am running Stretch when I started with Wheezy years ago!
  - isostatic 9y ago
    On the server the only upgrade issues I've had are things like apache configs breaking when moving from 2.2 to 2.4, or php (from 5 to 7), which happened when upgrading 14.04->16.04. Not sure how redhat/centos/etc would have prevented that. Likewise a few of our custom system management packages need tweaking when new versions come out, but aside from that no problems with 1200+ servers.
    - __s 9y ago
      Prevents PHP upgrade issues by not forcing that alongside the distro upgrade. Have php5 & php7 packages
      - isostatic 9y ago
        True, but it needed to happen (and I think apache 2.4 was forced). Generally it takes us about 12-18 months to get round to moving things on, and an OS upgrade is a great opportunity to kick us into a 'do it now' state.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      I've had relatively smooth upgrades on 14.04+. Anything 12 and before has always been a bit tricky. 14 -> 16 I'd rather just reinstall since it leaves all the old upstart stuff laying around and can be confusing to troubleshoot.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Uhh, I'm talking about desktop Ubuntu, not server installs where you don't have pulse, xorg, a DE and a shedload of other software. Getting a server upgrade right shouldn't be too hard, but when you add on another thousand packages or so, it makes the upgrade process much more likely to have breakage.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Yea, on my desktop and laptops, I've completely switched over from Ubuntu to plain vanilla Debian and have been extremely pleased.
- AnthonBerg 9y ago
  This is true! I wish to add that in my experience (years of use of both), I have found that Ubuntu is significantly lower quality and less stable than Debian. In other words, they squander some of the reliability they could inherit from Debian.
  - lima 9y ago
    As someone who used Debian, Ubuntu and CentOS in (serious) production I agree 100%. So many annoying bugs. Debian QA is much better, but Red Hat takes the cake. Their attention to even little details is remarkable.
baldfat 9y ago
Good advice. I run OpenSUSE and couldn't be happier with my them in regards to Desktop and Server. I think we all just just grok the way our distro does things.

pcnix 9y ago

Ubuntu is debian based, and works on .deb packages. Just nitpicking, nothing else to add.

StudentStuff 9y ago
Yeah, if it didn't get wrecked every other upgrade, I'd probably still be on Ubuntu. But talking to the Ubuntu Washington people this past weekend, its still an ongoing problem. Comparatively, here I am running Stretch when I started with Wheezy years ago!
- isostatic 9y ago
  On the server the only upgrade issues I've had are things like apache configs breaking when moving from 2.2 to 2.4, or php (from 5 to 7), which happened when upgrading 14.04->16.04. Not sure how redhat/centos/etc would have prevented that. Likewise a few of our custom system management packages need tweaking when new versions come out, but aside from that no problems with 1200+ servers.
  - __s 9y ago
    Prevents PHP upgrade issues by not forcing that alongside the distro upgrade. Have php5 & php7 packages
    - isostatic 9y ago
      True, but it needed to happen (and I think apache 2.4 was forced). Generally it takes us about 12-18 months to get round to moving things on, and an OS upgrade is a great opportunity to kick us into a 'do it now' state.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I've had relatively smooth upgrades on 14.04+. Anything 12 and before has always been a bit tricky. 14 -> 16 I'd rather just reinstall since it leaves all the old upstart stuff laying around and can be confusing to troubleshoot.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Uhh, I'm talking about desktop Ubuntu, not server installs where you don't have pulse, xorg, a DE and a shedload of other software. Getting a server upgrade right shouldn't be too hard, but when you add on another thousand packages or so, it makes the upgrade process much more likely to have breakage.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Yea, on my desktop and laptops, I've completely switched over from Ubuntu to plain vanilla Debian and have been extremely pleased.
AnthonBerg 9y ago
This is true! I wish to add that in my experience (years of use of both), I have found that Ubuntu is significantly lower quality and less stable than Debian. In other words, they squander some of the reliability they could inherit from Debian.
- lima 9y ago
  As someone who used Debian, Ubuntu and CentOS in (serious) production I agree 100%. So many annoying bugs. Debian QA is much better, but Red Hat takes the cake. Their attention to even little details is remarkable.

baldfat 9y ago

Good advice. I run OpenSUSE and couldn't be happier with my them in regards to Desktop and Server. I think we all just just grok the way our distro does things.