Dan Shearer wrote: > I have put some text for Bug 0 up at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the > solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup > comments are for and the body was already too long. > > Edit away people, but please don't try to turn it into a classic bug > report. This bug has a different purpose :-) > > Regards, > >
This is a well written wiki page, with viable and thought out input. The aim of the text in the wiki page appears to (in my opinion) be aimed at small/medium intergration targets, which is of course a viable market, hence the focus on things like "gui tools". A core issue for me with Ubuntu's server model is Ubuntus release model in general. A release every 6 months is not a model that can be pushed beyond home servers or work group services. This is for multiple reasons. 1.) a business of any nature cannot be expected to upgrade one server - let alone a multiple server estate every 6 months, throwing the LTS agrument into scope is also not viable (see point 2 and 3 for more detail) For me the server model needs to move away from 6 month release windows to gain any sort of credability in the business market. 2.) LTS fixes and backports. There is no enough fixes, updates and upgrades to make LTS a viable long term (3 year) stratergy for business use. Too much focus is on "fix for next release" or "upgrade product for next release", which relates to point 1. If a server model is to be considered usable it needs to have regular fixes applied to that release, not pushed out into current +1. I understand why this is done as unless the bug is mission critical it makes more sense from an ubuntu standpoint to target the fix into the next release, as that release will have updates in and is less than 6 months away. This is not an option for a long term server audience. The 6.06 release was crippled on later edition dell servers due to the lack of back ports on the kernel for specific hardware controllers, if the LTS edition is to be truly LTS, then I'm afraid kernel updates/back-ports will need to be on the radar more, and things learnt from the non-LTS products need to be pushed back. 3.) the 6 month release cycle from my experience is a real blocker for major corperate application players (Oracle being an easy example) to get on board and help make Oracle (again as an example only) a supported platform on Ubuntu Server. It's all very well having great lamp applications available to Ubuntu, but a few corperate big boys need to have their product on Ubuntu to be a realistic option for larger businesses. The RHEL and Centos (to some extent) releases have problems, and are not current in a lot of products, however the level of back ports, fixes and updates makes them a much more attractive option for paid (RHEL) and free (Centos) support. Yes they have their problems and I'm not pushing them as a replacment, I'm commenting on feedback I've had when offering Ubuntu as a Linux solution on the server platform, I'd like to see analysis of the good and bad things of RHEL and Centos and seeing what can be applied and learnt from them to be pushed into Ubuntu. I have very little issue pushing RHEL (apart from cost) or Centos to small, medium or even Large businesses but I do have issues pushing Ubuntu. There is also a lack of enterprise focus for me in Ubuntu server currenty, tools such as Redhats Satellite product which will allow easy mass managment of RHEL server and desktops are core to businesses picking this up. I'd like to see some good focus and discussion on the points raised above, rather than trying to make "gui" tools for the server release. My thoughts. Matt -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
