Linux on HP consumer laptop
The Ubuntu LTS ("stable" "server" "hardened" "enterprise" distro)
bootable DVD actually works in the consumer HP laptop my wife
may have to use.
The kernel Ubuntu LTS uses is:
4.2.0-35.40~14.04.1
whereas SL 7 is using a 3.x Linux kernel. All of the HP supplied
hardware seems to work under Ubuntu LTS current production,
including the graphics/video card/display, sound card, LAN, pointing
device, DVD driver/burner, and USB (including "automounting"). Is the
issue with SL 7 on this platform the
use of a 3.x kernel rather than a 4.x kernel? I would prefer to stay
with yum over apt-get, but if the hardware is not supported, one faces
a quandary.
In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production environment?
Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g., not a
consume/enthusiast product such as
MS Win or RH Fedora)?
Yasha Karant
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: > In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production environment? Is > it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g., not a > consume/enthusiast product such as > MS Win or RH Fedora)? Ubuntu LTS is used in a lot of production environments that tend to require newer libraries and packages. Most major distributions are reasonably secure out of the box, I'd argue that the primary difference is EL tends to have very thoroughly vetted package updates. I've seen some LTS packages with bugs and most other distributions don't test packages thoroughly enough for production. Debian however is very stable for servers (I'd probably use Debian over Ubuntu for production). Brandon Vincent
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> The Ubuntu LTS ("stable" "server" "hardened" "enterprise" distro)
> bootable DVD actually works in the consumer HP laptop my wife may have
> to use.
>
> The kernel Ubuntu LTS uses is:
>
> 4.2.0-35.40~14.04.1
That's because you installed 14.04.4.
Had you installed 14.04.3, you'd have 3.19.
Had you installed 14.04.2, you'd have 3.16.
Had you installed 14.04.1 or 14.04.0, you'd have 3.13.
And you could've stayed at whatever version that you'd want to use.
Basically three or four months after the release of a non-LTS version,
its kernel's made available within the latest LTS version; more or
less.
> In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production
> environment? Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g.,
> not a consume/enthusiast product such as MS Win or RH Fedora)?
Yes.
On the desktop, there are far more Windows systems deployed than Linux ones...
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: >> >> In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production environment? Is >> it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g., not a >> consume/enthusiast product such as >> MS Win or RH Fedora)? > > Ubuntu LTS is used in a lot of production environments that tend to > require newer libraries and packages. Most major distributions are > reasonably secure out of the box, I'd argue that the primary > difference is EL tends to have very thoroughly vetted package updates. > I've seen some LTS packages with bugs and most other distributions > don't test packages thoroughly enough for production. Debian however > is very stable for servers (I'd probably use Debian over Ubuntu for > production). The idea that RHEL's superior to Debian, SUSE, or Ubuntu as an enterprise distro is laughable, except perhaps that it's support life cycle's longer. And the idea that RHEL supplies bug-free, well-vetted packages is proven to be wrong by the brain-dead, clearly untested bind-chroot package that was discussed recently. Red Hat's huge and has a good PR and marketing department; but that's it.
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
On 04/04/2016 07:02 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
The Ubuntu LTS ("stable" "server" "hardened" "enterprise" distro)
bootable DVD actually works in the consumer HP laptop my wife may have
to use.
The kernel Ubuntu LTS uses is:
4.2.0-35.40~14.04.1
That's because you installed 14.04.4.
Had you installed 14.04.3, you'd have 3.19.
Had you installed 14.04.2, you'd have 3.16.
Had you installed 14.04.1 or 14.04.0, you'd have 3.13.
And you could've stayed at whatever version that you'd want to use.
Basically three or four months after the release of a non-LTS version,
its kernel's made available within the latest LTS version; more or
less.
In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production
environment? Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g.,
not a consume/enthusiast product such as MS Win or RH Fedora)?
Yes.
On the desktop, there are far more Windows systems deployed than Linux ones...
I understand that my following comment on your last statement may be
regarded as "off subject for this SL list". First, in many parts of
the world other than the USA, MS Windows is not that well deployed even
on the desktop except that many machines come with
MS Windows pre-installed. (Aside: I do not like the name "Windows" for
MS Windows. I routinely correct my students not to use
Windows, but Microsoft Windows or MS Windows. Open systems also have
Windows -- X windows. All of the current "windows" GUI
systems evolved from the Xeror Star system -- officially. Xerox 8010
Information System -- that were based upon previous "non-commercial"
research and implementation. Evolved does not mean necessarily sharing
the same source code, but the same "style" of basic GUI system.
The reason for the proliferation of MS Windows on the desktop has
nothing to do with stability, hardening, or functionality. It has to do
with for-profit
business practices -- Microsoft is a monopoly that really should be at
least four independent companies: an OS environment company (MS Windows),
a software applications company (MS Office, etc.), an ISP and services
vendor (e.g., "cloud" services and vendor rented provisioning), and an
integrated
full systems vendor (supplying a complete hardware, environment, and
applications software solution, similar to what Apple does with Mac
machines).
Because of the monopoly, not quality, Microsoft has gotten the market
share it does in the USA. Microsoft attempted to make massive
intrusions into high
performance locally distributed-coupled MIMD architectured machines
(e.g., machines such as those listed in
http://www.top500.org/list/2015/11/) , and did
not succeed because of the intrinsic limitations of the MS Windows
model. Architecturally, in terms of "classical" computing (not quantum
computing, etc.),
the BSD Mach type kernel model is "better" than the Linux monolithic
kernel; however, due to practical deployment development, as well as
licensing issues
at the early stages of "Free"BSD, Linux has by far won the open systems
base. Most of the Top 500 listed machines have some Linux base.
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: > On 04/04/2016 07:02 AM, Tom H wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: >>> >>> In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production >>> environment? Is it fact both stable and (reasonably) hardened (e.g., >>> not a consume/enthusiast product such as MS Win or RH Fedora)? >> >> On the desktop, there are far more Windows systems deployed than Linux >> ones... > > First, in many parts of the world other than the USA, MS Windows is > not that well deployed even on the desktop except that many machines > come with MS Windows pre-installed. In the corporate world, Windows dominates the desktop (it also dominates the desktop in the consumer/home world). So Windows is a "production" OS.
Re: Linux on HP consumer laptop
Try looking at the ARCH distro https://www.archlinux.org Best Regards, Dave On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: On 04/04/2016 07:02 AM, Tom H wrote: On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: In this regard, is anyone using Ubuntu LTS in a production...
