Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 13, 2011 13:41 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
Parent article: Fast distributions and slow servers

I don't even understand why there's anything to discuss.

It's obvious that for a low-maintenance server, you want a distribution that provides security bugfixes for as long as possible, so you have to do a major manual upgrade as infrequently as possible. Fedora does not provide such a stream of fixes. So Fedora is not the right tool for this job.

RHEL would be the obvious choice, if Red Hat gave the Fedora project free licenses, and if the sysadmin were most familiar with Fedora or RHEL. Centos is almost the same, with no licenses needed.

But if the person doing the sysadmin (especially on a volunteer basis?) is most familiar with Ubuntu, then that makes Ubuntu the obvious choice in that location. Force a volunteer off his area of expertise, and at best he makes more mistakes, and/or accomplishes less in his limited amount of time. At worst, he stops volunteering!

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 14, 2011 8:51 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link] (2 responses)

Also depends on whether they rent the hardware or the installed server. I.e. bare computer vs computer running Ubuntu on top of which they can install whatever. They may actually not have a choice with their current provider.

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 14, 2011 19:34 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, I hate it when people eat their dogfood. Dogfood is for dogs. People don't function as well on a diet of dogfood. Furthermore, that motivates people to change the dogfood to make it more palatable to them, at the expense of dogs.

Fast distributions and slow servers

Posted Jan 14, 2011 20:20 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

If everyone must eat their own dogfood, only people who make dogfood will eat.