Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
Dne, 28. 02. 2011 08:00:14 je Jason Hsu napisal(a): Given all this, what are the reasons for using the other server operating systems? WHY WHY WHY are there Windows servers out there? I know that Windows has only a small percentage of the server market, but given its inferior stability and security, why is it used at all? Because, without realizing it, people are usually their own worst enemy. Short-sightedness rules. We're human, after all. Everybody is, or has been, short-sighted in some particular realm of life. Really smart people have never been the majority, and they probably never will be. There is, however, one point of solace in that: luckily for us, they mostly inflict damage on themselves, the poor sods. In the end, it just comes back to bite *them* much more than us, and, as a result, it makes them think. Sometimes, it even makes them amend their ways. Which is not bad. Why do people use Ubuntu on the server given that Debian is more stable? Why do people use RedHat given that it has proprietary features in it? (While it's not Windows, it sounds like a step in the wrong direction.) I've heard that CentOS is MUCH more difficult to upgrade than Debian, so why do people use CentOS on the server? GNU/Linux is about freedom. Which includes freedom of choice. I suppose not all system administrators have the exact same goals in mind when setting up their servers. Perhaps that's the reason? In addition, each of the distros you mention have their own niche ecosystems. Specifically, RedHat is probably the greatest GNU/Linux success story in the corporate market, in that it proves that a free software company can prosper in a capitalist market. It proves that GNU/Linux is not just some commie fad for leftist weirdos. Proving that is no minor thing. As to Ubuntu specifically, many Debian developers are tightly intertwined with the Ubuntu crowd. Don't you think it was time we started looking at Ubuntu with a more sympathetic, condescending eye? In my view, Debian should take pride in Ubuntu and in everything Ubuntu has achieved. It is, after all, one of many Debian's children. Agreed, a slightly obese and retarded one, but a child nonetheless. And can a mother not love her child -- even if it's an enfant terrible gone slightly astray? -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- 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/1298890519.10205.0@compax
Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
From: Klistvud quotati...@aliceadsl.fr Because, without realizing it, people are usually their own worst =20 enemy. Short-sightedness rules. One of the reasons democracy is such an awful form of government. It works in a voluntary organization, and the Debian project demonstrates that admirably. Agreed, =20 a slightly obese and retarded one, but a child nonetheless. And can a =20 mother not love her child -- even if it's an enfant terrible gone =20 slightly astray? Many who try Ubuntu later learn about Debian who would otherwise not know of it. That and sending bug-fixes upstream, I believe fulfills all the requirements a parent could reasonably demand. Now if Unity would work under VirtualBox, I could give it a good going over. But NoooOOOooo Curt- http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/ -- 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/AANLkTin16jz2DAcucC96dxk_3R5G=bzf5o8c75gdt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Curt Howland howl...@priss.com wrote: Now if Unity would work under VirtualBox, I could give it a good going over. But NoooOOOooo https://launchpad.net/~unity-2d-team/+archive/unity-2d-daily -- 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/AANLkTin7+OQ=glrbexhdu33yf02cec5fndfow8mop...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
On Lu, 28 feb 11, 09:13:16, Curt Howland wrote: From: Klistvud quotati...@aliceadsl.fr Because, without realizing it, people are usually their own worst =20 enemy. Short-sightedness rules. One of the reasons democracy is such an awful form of government. It works in a voluntary organization, and the Debian project demonstrates that admirably. AFAICT, most of the time the Debian Project works as a do-ocracy and/or a meritocracy. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
on 01:00 Mon 28 Feb, Jason Hsu (jhsu802...@jasonhsu.com) wrote: I can't comment on other distros as servers, as my experience at the server level has so far been with a minimal command-line only Debian Stable installation. (When I'm given the option of installing packages for the graphical desktop, web server, mail server, etc., I don't select any of them.) You're going to get a pretty obvious bias asking this question on a Debian list. I tried this minimal Debian installation on the desktop in the past and didn't like it. But at the server level, I really appreciate the minimalism. As I have found from trying to upgrade Lenny to Squeeze, certain things about certain packages change. Thus, the more packages you have installed, the more difficult is, because you multiply your chances of running into problems. Given that most companies and organizations need their servers running 24/7/365, it makes sense to use the most stable OS possible for the server. Debian is known for stability in the Linux world, and the Stable branch is stable even by Debian standards. The server doesn't require as many applications as the desktop, so I don't mind a bare-bones Debian installation at the server level. Given concerns about security at the server level, a bare-bones installation seems better, as more applications mean the potential for more security holes. Without discussing merits of any one OS/distros, the rationales I've seen given are generally: - Organizational familiarity -- what do you know. - Marketing in general. Not just advertising, but various parternships (hardware, ISV, service providers). It can be effective. - Application support. Particularly in the realm of proprietary ISV third-party apps: what is vendor-supported? I've seen otherwise Debian shops opt for RHEL on Oracle servers. - Hardware support. Whether the issue is CPU architecture (Debian arguably runs on more platforms than any other OS) or simply vendor support for/under OSes of servers, expansion devices, and/or peripheral hardware. - Ease/cost of management. I'd give Debian very, very high marks here. APT, backports, package selection, and auxiliary management tools (stow, checkinstall, alien, and apt-build among others) make sane management of both distro-provided and third-party software vastly easier than any other platform I've had familiarity with (and hence: contempt for). With some 30,000+ packages, the in-distro availability of software trumps any other distro/OS. - Long-term support. For production environments, it's very helpful to have a system which one can deploy and leave in place for the life of hardware (3-7 years generally). Upgrades don't matter BECAUSE YOU NEVER UPGRADE. Individual packages are updated for security/bugfix reasons. The number of frighteningly brittle production systems in existance is petrifying. - Managed hosting. Various managed hosting providers will offer a set of standard, supported platforms. For a small startup, not having to worry about systems administration issues at the initial stage can be a win. OSes with corporate backing and marketing to create partnership agreements will be more successful here. - Suitability to task. For a firewall, OpenBSD makes a very persuasive argument (hardened, designed for the task, secure-by-default, very solid security history). For mobile devices you'd need your head examined to not look strongly at Android (yes, Nokia, I'm talking to you). Desktop gives you the choice of Microsoft, Apple, or numerous Linux distros. Debian, while not specifically optimized for any one task (it's the universal operating system) can be slotted into a vast range of tasks with ease, and high suitability. - Decreasingly: FUD. In the early oughts I interviewd with the CTO of a company who in all seriousness cited patent / lawsuit risk, specifically mentioning the SCO/Caldera lawsuits against IBM and Novell, as concerns for adopting Linux. This is pretty much a dead-ender rationale today. Given all this, what are the reasons for using the other server operating systems? The naive answer is that someone felt they were worth creating, and someone else thought they were worth deploying. WHY WHY WHY are there Windows servers out there? Oh, now we get to discuss other platform merits See the list above, starting with the first item. For many shops, there's an appeal to one platform, all systems. I have the same preference, though the platform I choose differs from these shops. Why do people use Ubuntu on the server given that Debian is more stable? See the list above, start with marketing. Suitability to task (ease of installation, end-user desktop orientation) also played a role, though IMO it's got little if any edge over Debian in this regard now.
Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
I can't comment on other distros as servers, as my experience at the server level has so far been with a minimal command-line only Debian Stable installation. (When I'm given the option of installing packages for the graphical desktop, web server, mail server, etc., I don't select any of them.) I tried this minimal Debian installation on the desktop in the past and didn't like it. But at the server level, I really appreciate the minimalism. As I have found from trying to upgrade Lenny to Squeeze, certain things about certain packages change. Thus, the more packages you have installed, the more difficult is, because you multiply your chances of running into problems. Given that most companies and organizations need their servers running 24/7/365, it makes sense to use the most stable OS possible for the server. Debian is known for stability in the Linux world, and the Stable branch is stable even by Debian standards. The server doesn't require as many applications as the desktop, so I don't mind a bare-bones Debian installation at the server level. Given concerns about security at the server level, a bare-bones installation seems better, as more applications mean the potential for more security holes. Given all this, what are the reasons for using the other server operating systems? WHY WHY WHY are there Windows servers out there? I know that Windows has only a small percentage of the server market, but given its inferior stability and security, why is it used at all? At least when a desktop has downtime, only one person is affected. When a server is down, the whole organization/company is affected. Why do people use Ubuntu on the server given that Debian is more stable? Why do people use RedHat given that it has proprietary features in it? (While it's not Windows, it sounds like a step in the wrong direction.) I've heard that CentOS is MUCH more difficult to upgrade than Debian, so why do people use CentOS on the server? -- Jason Hsu jhsu802...@jasonhsu.com -- 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/20110228010014.0c74d119.jhsu802...@jasonhsu.com
Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
Why do people use Ubuntu on the server given that Debian is more stable? Why do people use RedHat given that it has proprietary features in it? (While it's not Windows, it sounds like a step in the wrong direction.) I've heard that CentOS is RHEL is supported seven to ten years on each release. It is also commercially supported by big vendors like Oracle .. -- Eero -- 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/aanlktin857+vqcgaa-5y5qp_kzw641vyt+j8hzplx...@mail.gmail.com
