Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-18 Thread Robbie Williamson
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 07:20 -0800, Monte Milanuk wrote: > On 1/18/11 6:18 AM, John Pugh wrote: > > On 01/17/2011 01:05 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote: > >> So... providing technical specifications for a given release is a > >> 'community' thing, not a job for the Server or Docs team as a routine > >> part

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-18 Thread Peter Matulis
On 01/18/2011 10:55 AM, John Pugh wrote: > On 01/18/2011 10:20 AM, Monte Milanuk wrote: >> I guess if someone was wanting to evaluate Ubuntu as an enterprise >> choice vs. say RHEL, SuSE or other options, having a reasonably >> up-to-date Server page with complete information would be something I >

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-18 Thread John Pugh
On 01/18/2011 10:20 AM, Monte Milanuk wrote: > I guess if someone was wanting to evaluate Ubuntu as an enterprise > choice vs. say RHEL, SuSE or other options, having a reasonably > up-to-date Server page with complete information would be something I > would expect. I was under the impression tha

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-18 Thread Monte Milanuk
On 1/18/11 6:18 AM, John Pugh wrote: On 01/17/2011 01:05 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote: So... providing technical specifications for a given release is a 'community' thing, not a job for the Server or Docs team as a routine part of the release process? Correct. These are community pages. It just so

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-18 Thread John Pugh
On 01/17/2011 01:05 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote: > So... providing technical specifications for a given release is a > 'community' thing, not a job for the Server or Docs team as a routine > part of the release process? Correct. These are community pages. It just so happens that a Canonical employee u

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-17 Thread Monte Milanuk
So... providing technical specifications for a given release is a 'community' thing, not a job for the Server or Docs team as a routine part of the release process? -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More i

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-17 Thread Steven Miano
Seems like Monte is on it, maybe we'll see great contributions from him and his eagle eyes!!! ~MianoSM On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Pugh wrote: > Who is they? These are community driven pages so in this case > they=community. > > ANYONE can update these specs...maybe mianosm would lik

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-17 Thread John Pugh
Who is they? These are community driven pages so in this case they=community. ANYONE can update these specs...maybe mianosm would like to volunteer? I'll try to find some time to provide some updates JP On 01/16/2011 01:11 PM, Monte Milanuk wrote: > Fwd of another email someone sent to me,

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-16 Thread Monte Milanuk
Fwd of another email someone sent to me, instead of the list. Apparently they don't see it as a problem that going on three months after a release is out, the tech specs are still in 'draft' form and haven't been touched since October... I see a download link, and when I click on it 10.10 is

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-15 Thread Monte Milanuk
On 1/15/11 6:20 PM, John Pugh wrote: It is not listed on the ubuntu.com/server page and that is an error. I've entered bug #703372 [1] against it. Thanks for the heads up. JP [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website-content/+bug/703372 John, Thanks! I wasn't sure if bugs reports agai

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-15 Thread John Pugh
On 01/15/2011 08:56 PM, James Gray wrote: > On 16/01/2011, at 9:12 AM, Monte Milanuk wrote: >>> Works for me. I can understand why they wouldn't advertise the non-LTS >>> versions up front as server installations generally are designed to last a >>> lot longer than your average desktop, and as a

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-15 Thread James Gray
On 16/01/2011, at 9:12 AM, Monte Milanuk wrote: >> Works for me. I can understand why they wouldn't advertise the non-LTS >> versions up front as server installations generally are designed to last a >> lot longer than your average desktop, and as a result require longer term >> support. Lastly

Re: Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-15 Thread Monte Milanuk
Works for me. I can understand why they wouldn't advertise the non-LTS versions up front as server installations generally are designed to last a lot longer than your average desktop, and as a result require longer term support. Lastly, I'd hope anyone looking specifically for a "server" ve

Ubuntu Server page doesn't mention 10.10?

2011-01-15 Thread Monte Milanuk
Is there a specific reason that the Ubuntu.com Server page doesn't mention 10.10? There are links there for 8.04 LTS, 9.04, 9.10, 10.04 LTS... I would guess that 8.10 isn't there because of EOL; I would expect 9.04 to be 'falling off' here soon since it EOL'd on 10/23/10. But neither the Tec