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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo