Server comments

[Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom)]

   No question about it. It would require flexibility, a menu driven 
approach perhaps. I can do, I think, a 'custom' install/distro. I may end up 
doing that.

   We were originally using RHEL(3-4), then CentOS. They (and now FC4) have 
some flexibility in this area that Debian (and Ubuntu) lack. The frustrating 
thing is Debian/Ubuntu is head and shoulders above those distros - IMO. Suse 
looked nice but was horribly unstable on higher end hardware - oddly. Debian 
seems to clearly be the distro to use. Clear performance advantages based on 
real loads. (I wish it had even FC4's install options).

   I may look at dfsbuild, as long as it isnt limited to live CD's. (Which I 
dont think it is).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Smith" <tom71713-ubuntu at yahoo.com>
To: "Ubuntu Help and User Discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Server comments


> Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) wrote:
>
>>   I agree. Those are what I call appliances. (webservers etc). They
>> should be kept. I guess I'm asking for an addition category. All of
>> this can be done manually or course. But if I could select a 'business
>> server or 'application server' as opposed to server (which I see as a
>> much needed appliance install), it would make life easier.
>
> The problem with that, I think, is what you call a "business server" or
> "application server" may be different from what I think those things
> are. There are HUGE gray areas with implementing something like that.
>
> Even to have something like "web server" would create problems--may I
> think a web server is Tomcat, or Zope, or (more traditionally) Apache.
> There's just way too much ambiguity here. I personally think it's best
> to have as much flexibility built in as possible.
>
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users