3 ms·

For me, with a single production server, migrating to Ubuntu LTS on a new server seems a much less risky proposition to me than an in-place upgrade to either RH

For me, with a single production server, migrating to Ubuntu LTS on a new server seems a much less risky proposition to me than an in-place upgrade to either RHEL or Stream.

freedomben 6y ago
Forgive me, but if you're just building out a new server, wouldn't it be easier and less risky to stick with RHEL or Stream since you already know your workload runs fine? You also already know all the packages you need and probably have config files all set up and everything. At a minimum I would think they would pretty equal as far risk and ease if you're rebuilding. My workloads are mostly containerized at this point so the host OS is pretty insignificant overall. Perhaps you're in the same boat, although I'd still think it's at worst equal, at best easier to stick with RHEL flavored.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Canonical has not, to my knowledge, ever dropped 8 years of support off a release - even the non-paid ones! Redhat has. In some people's minds, that changed the risk assessment significantly; not "well it worked on this RHEL-family OS, so it should work on this other RHEL-family OS", but "I need to replace my OS - should I use one from the same vendor that just screwed me over, or should I switch to literally anything else?" Honestly, you've got people seriously suggesting Oracle Linux over anything from Redhat; do you have any idea how much trust you have to burn to get people to treat Oracle as a good option!?
- cpncrunch 6y ago
  The majority of my service is a compiled C++ server with html/js front-end, so it runs on practically anything. I do need to run ffmpeg/firefox/pulseaudio to record sessions, which has been problematic on Ubuntu in the past, but it seems to work reliably on Ubuntu 20. I also have many customers running my service on their Ubuntu servers, so it shouldn't be an issue. From what I've seen, Ubuntu 20 is probably going to be simpler to set up than Centos 8, as (I think) it has many of the required packages such as ffmpeg without needing to add epel and various other third party repos. It also doesn't have selinux, which I generally need to turn off on Centos (after spending a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to get everything working properly with it). My only issue with Ubuntu LTS is the shorter 5-year lifecycle. Perhaps by this time next year there will be some alternative repo that we can simply switch to in Centos 8 so that it just continues as-is, without us needing to take the risk of upgrading everything to a completely new distro.

For me, with a single production server, migrating to Ubuntu LTS on a new server seems a much less risky proposition to me than an in-place upgrade to either RHEL or Stream.

freedomben 6y ago

Forgive me, but if you're just building out a new server, wouldn't it be easier and less risky to stick with RHEL or Stream since you already know your workload runs fine? You also already know all the packages you need and probably have config files all set up and everything. At a minimum I would think they would pretty equal as far risk and ease if you're rebuilding. My workloads are mostly containerized at this point so the host OS is pretty insignificant overall. Perhaps you're in the same boat, although I'd still think it's at worst equal, at best easier to stick with RHEL flavored.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Canonical has not, to my knowledge, ever dropped 8 years of support off a release - even the non-paid ones! Redhat has. In some people's minds, that changed the risk assessment significantly; not "well it worked on this RHEL-family OS, so it should work on this other RHEL-family OS", but "I need to replace my OS - should I use one from the same vendor that just screwed me over, or should I switch to literally anything else?" Honestly, you've got people seriously suggesting Oracle Linux over anything from Redhat; do you have any idea how much trust you have to burn to get people to treat Oracle as a good option!?
cpncrunch 6y ago
The majority of my service is a compiled C++ server with html/js front-end, so it runs on practically anything. I do need to run ffmpeg/firefox/pulseaudio to record sessions, which has been problematic on Ubuntu in the past, but it seems to work reliably on Ubuntu 20. I also have many customers running my service on their Ubuntu servers, so it shouldn't be an issue. From what I've seen, Ubuntu 20 is probably going to be simpler to set up than Centos 8, as (I think) it has many of the required packages such as ffmpeg without needing to add epel and various other third party repos. It also doesn't have selinux, which I generally need to turn off on Centos (after spending a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to get everything working properly with it). My only issue with Ubuntu LTS is the shorter 5-year lifecycle. Perhaps by this time next year there will be some alternative repo that we can simply switch to in Centos 8 so that it just continues as-is, without us needing to take the risk of upgrading everything to a completely new distro.