w[h]ich is better ubuntu or fedora.

[Tom Adelstein]

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 19:18 +0100, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:10:07PM +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:
> > Interesting. On the Fedora lists we were constantly saying it's *not*
> > really suitable for a server system: go to something like CentOS (a
> > repackaged RHEL), since it's more stable [1] and should get support
> > for a lot longer than Fedora.
> > 
> > Personally, I'd look at Debian for an equivalent if you're used to
> > Ubuntu.
> >
> The problem with Debian for that sort of application is that while
> they're often long lived the releases don't overlap my anything like as
> much. That means that if you install at the wrong time (like now, for
> example) you get antique software and a short lifetime for updates. with
> the RHEL the older releases are supported for a lot longer after the new
> one is out so you can choose whether or not to upgrade old systems while
> still having a fairly up to date release for new ones.
> 
> Ubuntu is similar, but faster; release n shouldn't be dropped untill n+3
> is out of the door.


Better is a relative term. Are you senior enough to operate as a system
administrator? If not, Debian and Fedora will cause you trouble.

CentOS is not RHEL without the subscription and support services. It's a
distribution built with RHEL src rpms. But, the processes, proactive
security, etc. isn't Red Hat's. The kernel back porting isn't possible
either.

If you're a sys admin, Ubuntu can be you best server solution. 

If you are not a sys admin, then get an appliance or cpanel. Have
someone set it up to do what you want and use the web service to
administer the box.