blogs.computerworld.com — Ubuntu's always been popular with users, but not so much with server managers. Now, with Wikipedia moving from a hodge-podge of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora to Ubuntu 8.04 LTS that may be changing.
Oct 9, 2008 View in Crawl 4
kamikazowOct 10, 2008
Considering that their IT staff is already familiar with the Red Hat family of Linux products, they want to standardize on a single product while not paying for RHEL, I had chosen CentOS as well.
esoterikismOct 10, 2008
why?
init100Oct 10, 2008
That's actually not so hard. Use a centrally managed configuration management system, like Puppet, together with an automated installation system such as Kickstart, and adding and removing server becomes a quick matter to handle.
init100Oct 11, 2008
"Though really the glaring question isn't why aren't they moving to "RHEL or Fedora? ... It's why didn't they switch to centos or whitebox, two completely free versions of redhat linux, just without the word "RedHat(™)" anywhere."I agree, that is a question I would like an answer to. Just saying they moved to Ubuntu is of little interest, the interesting question is why. On the other hand, it is perfectly obvious why they wanted to standardize on one distro, that doesn't need much explanation.
init100Oct 11, 2008
@esoterikism"why?"Because "their baby" is mostly made by other people. Red Hat and Novell both far outweigh Canonical when it comes to contributions useful in the server space. Canonical is only about desktops, marketing and rabid fanboys.
init100Oct 11, 2008
That's interesting, since the fanboys claim that packaging screwups never happens to deb packages, and that screwups only happens in rpm packages.
honoredmuleOct 11, 2008
Example:<a class="user" href="http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-April/msg00133.html">http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007 ...</a>18 months later and how much progress have we made? And of what little progress there has been, how widely has it reached?