Ubuntu a poor choice for servers

[Paul Puschmann]

Joao Inacio <jcinacio at gmail.com> schrieb am Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:25:23PM +0100:
> On 7/11/06, Alan McKinnon <alan at linuxholdings.co.za> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 20:36 +0800, Charles Yao wrote:
> >>
> >> So what would you guys recommend for servers? thats easy to to
> >> administer of course. we do not have any IT staff to configure it if
> >> its gonna be complicated.
> >
> >One word:
> >
> >Debian
> >
> >If you want a pointy-clicky distro that comes with an invoice (which
> >always makes the suits smile for reasons I can't fathom), then RHEL4 is
> >a good choice.
> >
> >And if the admins run for the hills howling in fear at the very thought
> >of loading a config file into an editor, you'd give them SLES
> >
> >alan
> >
> 
> For me, consistency == debian, period. i haven't used slackware,
> gentoo or the likes simply because i think src-based distros involve
> too much work and time.
> 
> Debian isn't for everyone, but there is a great deal of good
> documentation and after everything is set up right it's a breeze to
> maintain. Also, apt simply RULES (i haven't used any rpm-based distro
> after it)
> 
> 
> This doesn't mean anyone can use it if he/she doesn't have the
> knowlege or can invest a large ammount of time reading documentation.

Yes, and that is the reason why I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian.

Sometimes you don't really need the latest version...

Paul
-- 
: Please answer below the quote, use a realname and
: use plain-text (no HTML).
: Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060712/bf76021e/attachment.sig>