On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: > On 2011-04-05 12:24:39 Matt Harrison wrote: >>On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. >><b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: >>> On 2011-04-05 12:07:16 George Standish wrote: >>>>On 05/04/11 01:04 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >>>>> On 2011-04-05 11:51:13 George Standish wrote: >>>>>>> If you need more support than Debian provides and<= 5 years, install >>>>>>> an Ubuntu LTS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to clarify, Ubuntu LTS releases are 5 years for the server >>>>>> version, 3 years for the desktop version. >>>>> >>>>> They use the same repositories. What exactly is the difference? >>>> >>>>I'm really not sure. >>>> >>> From >>> <http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/Top_10_ServerQA_Eng_W >>> P_AW_0.pdf>: >>> 10. Can I install server packages on an Ubuntu Desktop >>> installation and vice versa? >>> Yes – Ubuntu’s flexibility makes it easy. The Ubuntu software repositories >>> do not isolate packages to particular types of deployments. All the server >>> software in the repositories is available to the desktop user, and all the >>> desktop software can also be installed on the server. >>> >>> tl;dr: No difference. >> >>Are we seriously going to argue about which version of Ubuntu is >>supported for how long? > > I think it is reasonable to discuss, if a little OT. > >>Who cares? > > Someone that doesn't necessarily want to upgrade on Debian's schedule. With > Ubuntu, you can get 5 years, as opposed to Debian's ~3 years. With SLE* you > can get 10 years. I'm not sure about RHEL, but I think it is roughly a SLE* > timeframe. > > There are a number of organizations that would prefer to put hardware out in > the field with a certain image and only apply security and important bug fixes > for the life of the hardware. If the hardware refresh cycle is 3 years, you > can always install the latest Ubuntu LTS at deployment time and be good for 3 > years; that's not true of Debian (e.g. deployments in fall 2010). If the > hardware refresh cycle is 5 years, you can always install the latest SLES + SP > and be good for 5 years; that's not true of Ubuntu (e.g. deployments that > don't fall more or less exactly on an LTS release date). > > I prefer Debian, but I haven't had to manage 100s or 1000s of installations > where my main IT staff only has remote access or tried to completely script a > change from oldstable -> stable. I'm sure it's possible, but it probably > requires more work than just updating the systems within the same release. > I'm also not that interested is chipping on an effort to maintain Debian > oldstable any longer than it is supported now. For my purposes, the 1 year > time frame given to execute an oldstable -> stable transition has always been > more than enough. > > I should also note that Debian's support is (usually) for every package in > main. This is a much larger selection of software that is in Ubuntu's > main+restricted or within the SLE* support matrix. So, there are definitely > cases where Debian's support is best-in-class. > -- > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. > b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) > ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' > http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ >
All fine points....here you go: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktimqhjdejcy3we-okrqbmclxnyr...@mail.gmail.com
