27 ms·

I've always been surprised that people bother installing Ubuntu on anything other than a personal laptop or desktop computer. Genuine question: what does Ubuntu

by h2s 14y ago

I've always been surprised that people bother installing Ubuntu on anything other than a personal laptop or desktop computer. Genuine question: what does Ubuntu offer as a server OS that isn't available in plain Debian?

steevdave 14y ago
Landscape
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
gomox 14y ago
As a power user, I like updated packages on desktops without the hassle of running testing, and a debian-like system for servers with a predictable release date and packages newer than 1996 for servers. I love Debian but Ubuntu really did wonders for Linux adoption. This said, wherever squeeze is modern enough, I will use it instead.
- hp50g 14y ago
  I'd rather have debian stable. At least the packages actually work. Ubuntu is so damn unreliable (even LTS).
  - nivla 14y ago
    >unreliable (alt) I would have disagreed with you until a few weeks ago. The past few updates have been requiring us to restart our servers. You restart it and a day later there is another update that requires another restart. Putting off updates on production servers is no longer a choice but having them now is not the best thing either.
    - hp50g 14y ago
      To be honest this is the least of our problems. We can reboot parts of our cluster without affecting overall capacity much. You just chuck the machines out of the load balancer pool and reboot them. The issue is versions being pinned on LTS packages to broken versions. This includes svn, MySQL and a notable gcc problem which is a PITA.
    - cuillevel3 14y ago
      I guess these are kernel security patches. You know why there are no patches for Debian stables? Because, no one bothers anymore to find stuff in 2.6
      - Evbn 14y ago
        Are blackhats finding stuff? If not, sounds good.
      - hp50g 14y ago
        Considering a big chunk of 3.x is the same as 2.6... hmm.
ispivey 14y ago
cloud-init for programmatically configuring new instances https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CloudInit https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CloudInit
- hp50g 14y ago
  Puppet/dd?
rlpb 14y ago
The five year Long Term Support edition.
davidgerard 14y ago
3. Some newer packages. 2. PPAs. 1. It's actually supported by hosting companies. We use 10.04 (and soon to be some 12.04) at work. The server edition is pretty much a version of Debian. As a sysadmin, I like it a whole lot. Canonical indulge in mind-boggling WTFery on the desktop - but on the server underpinnings, they actually contribute a lot of paid developer effort directly to Debian to keep things going. Reporting bugs that were caused by Canonical is pretty much futile, though. With Ubuntu Server you get to keep both pieces just as you do with Debian, it's just they're pretty okay pieces.
- smosher 14y ago
  FWIW I have seen a lot more Debian support from hosting companies than Ubuntu support. Either way it's overwhelmingly RedHat. Honestly though, problems surrounding "newer packages" is the reason #1 I avoid Ubuntu. I think the problem I had might have been LTS-specific, but I expected it to break less with changes, not more.
cuillevel3 14y ago
Ubuntu has lots of releases, so you don't need to sit on a broken piece of technology for ages. Oh and there is no gnome-shell in Debian stable. Imho using an Ubuntu release is gradually easier than following Debian testing. And Ubuntu is security hardened. Take a look at this list, Apparmor, stack protection, (more) secure sysctl settings: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

by h2s 14y ago

steevdave 14y ago

Landscape

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

gomox 14y ago

As a power user, I like updated packages on desktops without the hassle of running testing, and a debian-like system for servers with a predictable release date and packages newer than 1996 for servers. I love Debian but Ubuntu really did wonders for Linux adoption. This said, wherever squeeze is modern enough, I will use it instead.

hp50g 14y ago
I'd rather have debian stable. At least the packages actually work. Ubuntu is so damn unreliable (even LTS).
- nivla 14y ago
  >unreliable (alt) I would have disagreed with you until a few weeks ago. The past few updates have been requiring us to restart our servers. You restart it and a day later there is another update that requires another restart. Putting off updates on production servers is no longer a choice but having them now is not the best thing either.
  - hp50g 14y ago
    To be honest this is the least of our problems. We can reboot parts of our cluster without affecting overall capacity much. You just chuck the machines out of the load balancer pool and reboot them. The issue is versions being pinned on LTS packages to broken versions. This includes svn, MySQL and a notable gcc problem which is a PITA.
  - cuillevel3 14y ago
    I guess these are kernel security patches. You know why there are no patches for Debian stables? Because, no one bothers anymore to find stuff in 2.6
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Are blackhats finding stuff? If not, sounds good.
    - hp50g 14y ago
      Considering a big chunk of 3.x is the same as 2.6... hmm.

ispivey 14y ago

cloud-init for programmatically configuring new instances https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CloudInit https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CloudInit

hp50g 14y ago
Puppet/dd?

rlpb 14y ago

The five year Long Term Support edition.

davidgerard 14y ago

3. Some newer packages. 2. PPAs. 1. It's actually supported by hosting companies. We use 10.04 (and soon to be some 12.04) at work. The server edition is pretty much a version of Debian. As a sysadmin, I like it a whole lot. Canonical indulge in mind-boggling WTFery on the desktop - but on the server underpinnings, they actually contribute a lot of paid developer effort directly to Debian to keep things going. Reporting bugs that were caused by Canonical is pretty much futile, though. With Ubuntu Server you get to keep both pieces just as you do with Debian, it's just they're pretty okay pieces.

smosher 14y ago
FWIW I have seen a lot more Debian support from hosting companies than Ubuntu support. Either way it's overwhelmingly RedHat. Honestly though, problems surrounding "newer packages" is the reason #1 I avoid Ubuntu. I think the problem I had might have been LTS-specific, but I expected it to break less with changes, not more.

cuillevel3 14y ago

Ubuntu has lots of releases, so you don't need to sit on a broken piece of technology for ages. Oh and there is no gnome-shell in Debian stable. Imho using an Ubuntu release is gradually easier than following Debian testing. And Ubuntu is security hardened. Take a look at this list, Apparmor, stack protection, (more) secure sysctl settings: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features