Ubuntu server will be supported for five years, interested?
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon 17 Apr 2006
| Not sure |
   17% | 121 votes |
| Yes |
44% | 306 votes |
| No |
37% | 257 votes |
| Total 684 votes |
I think this is interesting for boxes that only run one service (dns, ftp,...) that will not change in the next years but not for the mayority who run webservers. You still need to update your applications and they may need a recent version of php, some apache modules or what ever...
So for me this ubuntu offer is not interesting.
--
browse ManPages online!
So for me this ubuntu offer is not interesting.
--
browse ManPages online!
[ Parent ]
I guess I voted yes becuase I'm interested enough to take a look at it, but I can't really see myself using it. For servers I can't see myself really wandering far away from Debian stable and/or FreeBSD.
IMO, the thing that makes (K)Ubuntu nice is that it's basically Debian, but regularly updated, and with all the bells and whistles bolted on, but it's also entirely a desktop distro from everything I've seen of it so far, and there's little that will really sway me to move over from stable.
Laters.
IMO, the thing that makes (K)Ubuntu nice is that it's basically Debian, but regularly updated, and with all the bells and whistles bolted on, but it's also entirely a desktop distro from everything I've seen of it so far, and there's little that will really sway me to move over from stable.
Laters.
[ Parent ]
Posted by sabin (85.90.xx.xx) on Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 22:50
[ Send Message | View sabin's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
[ Send Message | View sabin's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
I voted no.. since I can't imagine beeing in need for 5 years support of one release.. however... on my servers I run debian and that shouldn't change soon. When it comes to workstations, I prefer Ubuntu. like mentioned above it's debian anyway but newer and more up to date.. still people might run debian testing for that but well. as I said I prefer ubuntu on desktops specially since I installed Xgl and compiz on my boxen. pretty nice..
./sabin -s
./sabin -s
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (212.138.xx.xx) on Tue 18 Apr 2006 at 05:55
Definitely a big YES. I don't see any reason to vote no since this should satisfy every one needs and do no harm at all. If I am kinda guy who loves to update to get use of latest versions or a new feature I can just install a new version or update that one. If I am wearing the hat of a conservative admin who doesn't like to fix things that work then i can wear that hat for five years until it shows wear ;)
Voting no means, you prefer it to be supported for less years? would 3 years support be better than 5 years?
--
Munzir Taha
Voting no means, you prefer it to be supported for less years? would 3 years support be better than 5 years?
--
Munzir Taha
[ Parent ]
Voting no means that I see no reason for obtaining support for Ubuntu when I am able to use Debian Stable.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (210.253.xx.xx) on Thu 20 Apr 2006 at 01:55
Its vote will be cast five years after.
[ Parent ]
What ever linux flavour i try! I promptly return back to DEBIAN with in a month!
[ Parent ]
I'm still not sold on Ubuntu, particularly as a server; not for any particularly rational reason, I guess. I just haven't seriously tried it out because I know at this point I'm still pretty jazzed about debian and I won't give it a fair shake. I will have to wait until I'm really cheesed off at a debian box before I try it out. ;-)
[ Parent ]
Heh...
All of the linux boxes that I control are Ubuntu - basically because they package a good subset of debian onto one CD (for the server), and they make sure that I will not forget any core services.
As far as support for 5 years.. yeah. That's a good thing. In a past life I found that the average lifespan of a server was about 5 years in my geopolitical area. They were NetWare boxes, but running across servers that had not been touched in two or three years was commonplace. Installing a 5 year lifespan OS on a box means that if I come back in 3 or 4 years, I can simply patch it and not have to worry about a dist-upgrade breaking things.
All of the linux boxes that I control are Ubuntu - basically because they package a good subset of debian onto one CD (for the server), and they make sure that I will not forget any core services.
As far as support for 5 years.. yeah. That's a good thing. In a past life I found that the average lifespan of a server was about 5 years in my geopolitical area. They were NetWare boxes, but running across servers that had not been touched in two or three years was commonplace. Installing a 5 year lifespan OS on a box means that if I come back in 3 or 4 years, I can simply patch it and not have to worry about a dist-upgrade breaking things.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (84.41.xx.xx) on Sat 22 Apr 2006 at 02:59
i voted no,
not because i dont like ubuntu, i do ! but because i think any install base of a decent server should not consider it's installed software as a release or some other point in time. Instead think of software as a stream, a moving target, thinks like security updates, patches to fix certain problems and updates to post/pre install scripts are coming in all the time.
That's one of the biggest reasons, why i like the debian way, much like bsd variants as openbsd or freebsd, one runs the 'stable/testing/unstable' version on a machine updating packages accordingly. This means you will always run the latest version of the stream you took the time to update too.
So when an update/security fix hits mainline, you'll get a email notice from apt-get or cvsup and install that security fix of apache/ssh or whatever as soon as posible.
That said, offering support on 'as much years as possible' is a good thing, lots (if not most) servers are not updated every 6 months or so, to the latest release standard. So still having security updates on a 4 year old system is a very good thing :)
Go ubuntu for offering 5 year support on there distro, but damn them if it goes at the expensive of work better spend anywhere else. Long lasting support is a good thing but often updating to a better way of working is even better.
not because i dont like ubuntu, i do ! but because i think any install base of a decent server should not consider it's installed software as a release or some other point in time. Instead think of software as a stream, a moving target, thinks like security updates, patches to fix certain problems and updates to post/pre install scripts are coming in all the time.
That's one of the biggest reasons, why i like the debian way, much like bsd variants as openbsd or freebsd, one runs the 'stable/testing/unstable' version on a machine updating packages accordingly. This means you will always run the latest version of the stream you took the time to update too.
So when an update/security fix hits mainline, you'll get a email notice from apt-get or cvsup and install that security fix of apache/ssh or whatever as soon as posible.
That said, offering support on 'as much years as possible' is a good thing, lots (if not most) servers are not updated every 6 months or so, to the latest release standard. So still having security updates on a 4 year old system is a very good thing :)
Go ubuntu for offering 5 year support on there distro, but damn them if it goes at the expensive of work better spend anywhere else. Long lasting support is a good thing but often updating to a better way of working is even better.
[ Parent ]