What is Digg?21 Comments
- JonForTheWin, on 02/18/2009, -0/+31HP is one of the few companies that "gets it". Their Digital Sender scanner series, and their HP Linux Imaging and Printing project on Source Forge http://hplip.sf.net are perfect examples. Not right at this moment, but ten (it's starting to look like less) years down the line, as top-down companies like HP realize with GNU/Linux they can offer their own software stack entirely . . watch the ***** out microsoft.
- merreborn, on 02/18/2009, -1/+12Having used Debian as a server distro for several years, frankly, I can see both sides.
Debian is great for servers, because it's *very* heavily tested, and extremely secure.
Ubuntu is terrible in this regard, because basically, Ubuntu is debian's unstable/testing branch, with some fixes, and a little polish. It's far less well tested.
However, Debian has a huge drawback: its packages can be years out of date. e.g., at one point, while Mysql 5 and PHP 5 were relatively stable, the stable version of Debian only had (heavily patched) 2 year old versions of Mysql 4 and PHP 4. They included some troublesome functionality bugs -- debian's updated packages only included security fixes. Additionally, the Debian kernel didn't include drivers for a lot of newer hardware.
Ubuntu doesn't have this problem. The latest PHP/Mysql patches are made available rapidly, and your kernel's never terribly out of date.
So, you're left with a dillema: Debian's security versus Ubuntu's up-to-date packages and drivers.
If you're okay with being several versions behind on your software (which can be a BIG problem if you're using relatively young projects like PHP and MySQL), and the current Debian stable kernel has drivers for your hardware, by all means, go Debian.
On the other hand, if you want the latest (albeit fairly untested) packages, or Debian stable's kernel doesn't have drivers for your hardware, Ubuntu is probably a better choice. Although CentOS/RHEL is probably an even better choice, since they're targeted for the server market. - linuxpenguin, on 02/18/2009, -0/+9Ubuntu Server is not Ubuntu Desktop. It doesn't install X Windows by default - only apps typical for server usage.
It also has some auto-setup tools for setting up Apache and MySQL with a working default configuration. Of course you need to change the settings to suit your needs - but it's handy just to get you started. - sjvn, on 02/18/2009, -0/+7Ubuntu server, as linuxpenguin points out is really a very straight-forward server Linux distro and as merreborn comments it does include more up-to-date server software than Debian.
Personally, I like SLES and RHEL/CentOS for serious server use. But, these days, I'd certainly give Ubuntu a try as well if I have a client who wanted to take a look at all their server options. - Pillar007, on 02/18/2009, -3/+9Take that, Microsoft!
- phrstbrn, on 02/18/2009, -1/+6OpenLDAP support is fine.
At the office, I'm running a cluster of OpenLDAP servers (running Ubuntu) providing user authentication via NSS and Kerberos.
I don't know where you're getting this FUD. - MacEnvy, on 02/18/2009, -5/+9Call me a skeptic, but I wouldn't run Ubuntu on an enterprise server. In a production environment I'd take Red Hat or SUSE (or HP-UX) just based on a proven track record. Hell, if you're going to use Ubuntu, why not just go to the source and use Debian? You don't even need an X-windowing system for most servers, why use a distro with so much consumer-oriented stuff?
That said, I suppose I should check out Ubuntu Server Edition further before getting into unsteady ground. - c00l2sv, on 02/18/2009, -0/+4Ubuntu itself in a production environment is pretty stable. You want to know why I wouldn't go with Debian?
Here is it...
Debian is a cool and stable distro, but when it comes to new technologies/software coming into their repositories - timeout.
They have to fight, kill each other, write a book, then I will be able to do an apt-get install with that application (i'm talking about stable branch). Ubuntu is far more open to new packages, so If I need a new version of mc (which can't be a security vulnerability in any case for my file server lets say), I don't have to wait it coming up, 22 months?
Here is where Ubuntu is not just Debian, it's something very live. - c00l2sv, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3I just found that Debian lenny has no firmware for of our IBM BladeCenter S nics.
What now? - felipe1982, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3Dugg for SUSE/SLED comments
- specialK16, on 02/18/2009, -0/+3"That said, I suppose I should check out Ubuntu Server Edition further before getting into unsteady ground."
Yes, you should. - Ebacherville, on 02/18/2009, -1/+3didn't dell do this along time ago.. on end users PC's too?
- setset, on 02/18/2009, -0/+2really informative article.
- MattBD, on 02/19/2009, -0/+1I've been tinkering with Ubuntu Server in a VM lately and it's pretty easy to use for a CLI-only system. While I am a Linux user of nearly two years now, I don't work in IT, so my knowledge is purely that of an enthusiastic amateur. But I find Ubuntu Server very simple to set up and use. The curses-based installer is easy, and means you can quickly set up whatever server you want. I'm thinking about possibly building my own home server for streaming media files, and I'm thinking Ubuntu Server would work well for that.
- dwalker, on 03/03/2009, -0/+1Great match, these already sell HP servers with Ubuntu installed:
http://www.seiretto.com/web_hosting/managed-dedica ... - SteveGeorge, on 02/18/2009, -0/+1@MacEnvy,
Ow! You should definitely check out Ubuntu on the server, there's lots of good things about it. Here's some things I'd mention:
* Two release cycles
- Every six months with 18 months maintenance for cutting edge development
- Every two years with 5 years of maintenance for corporate deployments
* Benefit of Debian packaging/quality with newer packages
* Specific features for Ubuntu
- For example you can set-up an integrated LAMP stack in one command
- Work on JEOS and small virtual appliances
* ISV and hardware certifications
* Commercial services and support for corporate deployments - YourNameHere1, on 02/18/2009, -0/+0I may be very very wrong at this.... but there is an option in the "make menuconfig" for adding firmware blobs into your kernel when you compile it..... so maybe you could add the firmware that way?
- Auzy, on 02/18/2009, -4/+4I agree totally.. Ubuntu severely lacks in many areas still, in featureset, and otherwise compared to most other servers. Also, last I checked, Ubuntu lacked pretty much lacked LDAP support entirely, and Canonical aren't even willing to actively support development for their OS.
Seriously, its a bit counterintuitive to develop an OS, but not help make development as easy as possible.. Whilst red hat is off actively developing systemtap and eclipse, Ubuntu is sitting there simply waiting for the patches. That being said though, Eclipse is 3 years old in their repos.. - ahmeddirie, on 02/18/2009, -0/+0I think it only makes sense. I prefer Ubuntu as my server OS and HP is practically one of the top of the line when it comes to server hardware.
- Auzy, on 02/18/2009, -3/+2Being able to do something, and being able to do it elegantly are 2 separate things.
A graphics artist can do his work on gimp, but things would turn out a lot better if he used Adobe Creative suite for instance..
Fedora/Red Hat blows Ubuntu away when it comes to LDAP.. Yes you can tell me I'm wrong, but its immediately obvious from the word go. - inactive, on 02/18/2009, -11/+1Submitted and written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a bona fide ***** and known Linux troll. He's the Rush Limbaugh of open source. This idiot will say anything to make Microsoft or anything else "non-Linux" look bad. Unfortunately, not enough people in the biz are smart enough to stop publishing his garbage.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is