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 of the release process? > > > > Correct. These are community pages. It just so happens that a Canonical > > employee updated it initially, but usually the community steps up to > > update it. I made a few changes yesterday, but did not have enough time > > to go through it in detail. > > > > These "technical specs" appear to be a listing of specific packages and > > their versions which are readily available via packages.ubuntu.com so > > I'm not sure of the usefulness? > > > > 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 that was where Canonical was > wanting to go with their Server version? 'Community' or no, I am a bit > surprised the company doesn't keep up their website a little better. > You might go to packages.ubuntu.com; I might go to DistroWatch and > compare various distributions/releases, and someone else might have > another way. But neither excuses Canonical from keeping their .com site > up to date.
As painful as it is to admit, I agree with you. We need to have better documentation around Ubuntu Server...it's high on my list of things to fix. Thanks for the feedback. -Robbie Williamson -- Robbie Williamson [email protected] Ubuntu robbiew[irc.freenode.net] "You can't be lucky all the time, but you can be smart everyday" -Mos Def "Arrogance is thinking you are better than everyone else, while Confidence is knowing no one else is better than you." -Me ;) -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
