Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
2009/11/3 Steven Tucker : > Hi all, > > I will soon be replacing a Windows 2003 server in a small business with some > Linux variant. Traditionally I have used Debian or Centos, I have been wary > of using Ubuntu (whether justified or not, I was not confident with it on a > server). > > Im now slowly being won over with others telling me how successful their > ubuntu server installs have been, so now Im considering using ubuntu server > edition. > > My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will > likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? > install 9.04 and upgrade, install last LTS (I think 8.10 ??) and upgrade, > install last LTS and dont upgrade or go my traditional route and use Centos > or Debian. > I really hope this does not become a distro flame war, its really not > intended (or wanted), just some idea's and hopefully experience. Unless > people have specific reasons they would not use Ubuntu on a server, I am more > interested in hearing thoughts on the Ubuntu upgrade path rather than using a > different distro (unless of course it is justified, not just distro > preference). I don't experience with Ubuntu Server LTS so will try to avoid a flame war by commenting on it. I'll try to help you focus on what I believe to be the question which should matter to you the most - which distribution and version will help you spend the least amount of time on active support and you expect things to "just work" for you? This is a relatively personal question - it depends a lot on your personal experience and in which distro you feel most comfortable that "you can tuckle anything in the quickest way". If you want to install Distro X at a remote client site, I think you better gain some time of hands-on experience with it, its community, nomenclature, terminology, time lines and record in supporting the version you are going to install. Remember that unless the customers are Linux system admins themselves (even most "professional programmer" do not count), they wouldn't care less if the filesystem is ext4 or Reiser5, or that the system can boot a minute faster or has glibc 2.10-1. All they care is that the server will "be there" and be up every time they try to use it. For your own sanity, you should care about things like stability and security updates - again in the name of spending the least amount of time keeping it up to date and resistant to security attacks. Hope this helps, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
Steven Tucker wrote: My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? install 9.04 and upgrade That was suppose to be 9.10, latest version, then upgrade to 10.04 Tuxta -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
On Tuesday 03 November 2009 20:49:58 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: > I will soon be replacing a Windows 2003 server in a small business with > some Linux variant. Traditionally I have used Debian or Centos, I have been > wary of using Ubuntu (whether justified or not, I was not confident with it > on a server). > > Im now slowly being won over with others telling me how successful their > ubuntu server installs have been, so now Im considering using ubuntu server > edition. > > My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will > likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? > install 9.04 and upgrade, install last LTS (I think 8.10 ??) and upgrade, > install last LTS and dont upgrade or go my traditional route and use Centos > or Debian. I really hope this does not become a distro flame war, its > really not intended (or wanted), just some idea's and hopefully experience. > Unless people have specific reasons they would not use Ubuntu on a server, > I am more interested in hearing thoughts on the Ubuntu upgrade path rather > than using a different distro (unless of course it is justified, not just > distro preference). I ran my server (LAMP Mail and DNS) on ubuntu for a couple of years without problems and with quite positive impressions. Eventually I needed new compiler and qt4 support for my mythtv and at that time I let my preference for yast prevail. The advantage of LTS was a quite nice LTS-LTS++ upgrade where as upgrading version to version was much more iffy - sometimes OK, not always So if you were going ubuntu i'd install the last lts then upgrade and not 9.10 to next LTS. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
Steven Tucker wrote: Hi all, I will soon be replacing a Windows 2003 server in a small business with some Linux variant. Traditionally I have used Debian or Centos, I have been wary of using Ubuntu (whether justified or not, I was not confident with it on a server). Im now slowly being won over with others telling me how successful their ubuntu server installs have been, so now Im considering using ubuntu server edition. My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? install 9.04 and upgrade, install last LTS (I think 8.10 ??) and upgrade, install last LTS and dont upgrade or go my traditional route and use Centos or Debian. I really hope this does not become a distro flame war, its really not intended (or wanted), just some idea's and hopefully experience. Unless people have specific reasons they would not use Ubuntu on a server, I am more interested in hearing thoughts on the Ubuntu upgrade path rather than using a different distro (unless of course it is justified, not just distro preference). Thanks Tuxta yeah go 9.10, it seems pretty spiffy from a desktop POV. I have found ubuntu server upgrades to be much nicer than the average desktop upgrade, I spose there is less stuff on a server and hence less to go wrong. I wouldn't be too worried about tracking the current release on a server, give it a month or two after release to make sure any kinks are worked out and go for it ;-> But then I have only updated as needed for hardware support and feature additions, like somebody said if it ain't broke. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:40 +1100, david wrote: > A little bird told me that the latest Ubuntu does ext4 by default (is > this so? should you care?) so that may be a factor for you. Changing > filesystems is probably something you would rather avoid. An upgrade from Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (ext3) to Ubuntu 10.04 LTS will in all likelihood continue to use the existing filesystems as ext3, and not 'upgrade' them to ext4. There are two upgrade paths to 10.04 LTS: from 8.04, and from 9.10. If it were me, I'd deploy with 9.10, and upgrade from there when 10.04 comes out. Why? I don't have a scientific reason for it, but a step from 9.10 to 10.04 will be more 'incremental' than from 8.04 to 10.04. Take ext4 for example. 9.10 uses ext4 by default, so there will be no worries there. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
I'm using Ubuntu Hardy on servers (one mail, one web/database/dns of mine, plus one fileserver run by my son-in-law) and we have not found the need to upgrade. I'm waiting for the next LTS. I don't think this is viable on desktop but on server I think it's more than desirable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A little bird told me that the latest Ubuntu does ext4 by default (is this so? should you care?) so that may be a factor for you. Changing filesystems is probably something you would rather avoid. Ironically, I started using Ubuntu because I like the Debian paradigm but didn't want to wait so long for upgrades! Except for the PulseAudio debacle (see previous thread) I have had no real reason to dislike Ubuntu. Naturally PulseAudio doesn't relate to servers. OTOH, I haven't used Redhat since V.7 so maybe it's much better than Debian now.. who knows? It strikes me that Distros are like modern cars.. they all work pretty well and they are all pretty reliable, but that's just an impression I have. Steven Tucker wrote: Hi all, I will soon be replacing a Windows 2003 server in a small business with some Linux variant. Traditionally I have used Debian or Centos, I have been wary of using Ubuntu (whether justified or not, I was not confident with it on a server). Im now slowly being won over with others telling me how successful their ubuntu server installs have been, so now Im considering using ubuntu server edition. My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? install 9.04 and upgrade, install last LTS (I think 8.10 ??) and upgrade, install last LTS and dont upgrade or go my traditional route and use Centos or Debian. I really hope this does not become a distro flame war, its really not intended (or wanted), just some idea's and hopefully experience. Unless people have specific reasons they would not use Ubuntu on a server, I am more interested in hearing thoughts on the Ubuntu upgrade path rather than using a different distro (unless of course it is justified, not just distro preference). Thanks Tuxta __ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Ubuntu Server LTS
Hi all, I will soon be replacing a Windows 2003 server in a small business with some Linux variant. Traditionally I have used Debian or Centos, I have been wary of using Ubuntu (whether justified or not, I was not confident with it on a server). Im now slowly being won over with others telling me how successful their ubuntu server installs have been, so now Im considering using ubuntu server edition. My question is .. the next LTS version is 10.04, but my deployment will likely be in January. What do people think the best course of action is? install 9.04 and upgrade, install last LTS (I think 8.10 ??) and upgrade, install last LTS and dont upgrade or go my traditional route and use Centos or Debian. I really hope this does not become a distro flame war, its really not intended (or wanted), just some idea's and hopefully experience. Unless people have specific reasons they would not use Ubuntu on a server, I am more interested in hearing thoughts on the Ubuntu upgrade path rather than using a different distro (unless of course it is justified, not just distro preference). Thanks Tuxta __ Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail. Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
