Bug 0 review pls
Matt Darcy
ubuntu.lists at projecthugo.co.uk
Sat May 31 15:59:10 UTC 2008
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
More information about the ubuntu-server
mailing list