OT :UBUNTU server ?

James Wilkinson ubuntu at westexe.demon.co.uk
Sat May 14 10:07:29 UTC 2005

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> Strictly speaking, Ubuntu /is/ unstable.

"Unstable" isn't actually that helpful a word. It has two major
connotations: "doesn't change much" and "doesn't crash much".

Windows 98 is "stable" in that Microsoft aren't doing anything other
than fixing bugs in it. If you have a program that depends on one of the
(mis)features in Windows 98, you can be fairly certain that Microsoft
won't introduce changes in Windows 98 that will break that program.

But a crash-proof version of Windows 98? Sounds less plausible than Pig
Stealth Bombers...

Gnome is "stable" in that I've never got *it* to crash. But with a new
version out every six months with new features and new ways of doing
things, you have to stay somewhat on your toes. (Backwards compatibility
is supposed to work well, though).

I must admit that coming from Fedora, I've found one or two areas
https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6762) where Ubuntu seems a
little buggier (on x86-64) than Fedora.

Having said that, I've found that servers generally only rely on the
underlying Unix / POSIX functionality that's been stable for decades.
You can import new desktop environments, new programming languages,
whizzy 3D drivers, new interaction styles: stuff like Postfix and Apache
keep rolling along. And where they do take advantage of new features,
those features tend to be new kernel interfaces which are shared among
all the distributions anyway.


E-mail address: james | Say it with flowers, send a triffid.
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | 

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list