Comments on: Wikipedia Moving 400 Servers To Ubuntu Linux From Red Hat Linux

By: Gagan Brahmi

Gagan Brahmi — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:06:26 +0000

…Also, yes yum has yet to improve a lot to beat apt-get. A nice package management tool, for those who says yum is good.. my advise will be to try apt-get, you’ll love it..

By: Gagan Brahmi

Gagan Brahmi — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:03:24 +0000

I have been a fan on redhat distro for some time now, but I have been using Ubuntu for past couple of month as my desktop. And believe me, nothing can beat Ubuntu. A perfect solution for desktop linux. But when it comes to servers, I still consider that redhat has an edge over Ubuntu or Debian in that case.

By: Daniel Kühl

Daniel Kühl — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:48:11 +0000

“… admins less experienced with Linux/Unix to support.”

Amateurs.

By: bayu

bayu — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:03:06 +0000

what about mandriva ??

By: Ed Lyon

Ed Lyon — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:36:21 +0000

I’ve worked with Ubuntu, CentOS, Redhat, HPUX, Gentoo, OSX etc. Ubuntu isn’t a bad choice, less bloat, nice package management system, and lower support cost, but timely updates etc. My own company switched from Redhat to CentOS and are now switching to Ubuntu. A lot of it is because Ubuntu is a more easy for the admins less experienced with Linux/Unix to support.

By: cosminus

cosminus — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:57:58 +0000

I use both Ubuntu and Fedora as desktops workstations at home and at work, both with Gnome.
Personally I like more Fedora 9 than Ubuntu 8.04 and I find that yum/Yumex are more user friendly and more flexible/powerful than apt-get/synaptic. Even more I prefer yum and not apt-get (from console).
As for a server, I will stick with Red Hat, or otherwise I will go to something Unix (FreeBSD, Solaris) for improved performance.

By: Daniel Kühl

Daniel Kühl — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:53:06 +0000

It’s look like an amateur solution.

Seriously, Wikipedia it’s being an important website, why do not use a professional solution?

By: James

James — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:38:51 +0000

Why not just Debian “Stable” or standardize on 1 RHEL or CENTOS version

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:50:14 +0000

I can understand unifying server environs, but Ubuntu? Isn’t Ubuntu made for desktop environments?

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:32:02 +0000

I tried to install ubuntu on some servers because of the Ubuntu hype but after 3 weeks I went back to centos. Their updates will brake your system and and ubuntu server is not stable. How about some lvm2 support, acl not to get corrupted after updating. Their lead is desktop computing but not servers. Their server documentation is outdated – they cant even get close to redhat’s documentation.
So many more things to mention. I hate ubuntu server!
CentOS FTMFW

By: Planet Malaysia

Planet Malaysia — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:26:43 +0000

I’m support SuSE Linux!

By: Daniel Kühl

Daniel Kühl — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:59:48 +0000

Ubuntu de cú é rola!

Oh come on! It isn’t April 1st! Not time to joke people!
Ubuntu? Ubuntu? Oh…

As another post said: “wish you luck”

Ubuntu?

By: Cosmix

Cosmix — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:53:18 +0000

“used a custom-scripted installation procedure”
>> use a well done kickstart script
>> built one sistem … make a clone and deploy

“mix of things: some Red Hat 9, some Fedora”
>> so why did not you make (yet) a transition to newer fedora ?

“they did not want to pay Red Hat”
>> ok , that’s why Centos is out there ..

>> standardize on something.
so … why not Centos ? Free BSD ? or even Solaris ?

and nothing can beat apt package manger.
>> have you ever tried yum ?

anyway , wish you luck !!

By: Trey Blancher

Trey Blancher — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:23:27 +0000

To David, who says,”ugh,” about dpkg… You do realize that on Debian and derivatives apt is a frontend to dpkg?

It’s good that they’re standardizing on something. Red Hat, in all its incarnations has never sat well with me. I’ve used it quite a bit, and it’s always seemed ugly to me. Hopefully this push towards standardization on Ubuntu will be good for it.

By: Leopoldo Maestro

Leopoldo Maestro — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:26:58 +0000

I can imagine it like a problem with the “professional” Debian support. Ubuntu and Redhat give support professional for his distributions.

At this moment, i think the best option could be Redhat Enterprise, but with the price of licenses, it is a bit hard for a non profit organization.

By: smooth

smooth — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:03:02 +0000

i agree with Nathan
its like going from bad 2 worst :S

By: Troy W. Banther

Troy W. Banther — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:31:25 +0000

I agree with them going to a single platform if they need it to manage their servers easier and a small IT staff.

My job is to manage Red Hat and OS X servers at work and I don’t find the Red Hat servers difficult. It could be that version 9 was a little dated for support.

My home operating system is Debian Etch and it is solid. Easy to update, manage, etc. I’ve installed FreeBSD as well but found some older servers have parts that it does not recognize.

By: soundar

soundar — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:14:24 +0000

is administrative over head is only fact to kick out redhat?

By: David

David — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:21:13 +0000

Ubuntu does have versions that are less often updated (Long Term Support versions or LTS).

Apt is also not unique to Debian; apt-rpm is phenomenal and one of the first things that go on my Red Hat boxes. Now dpkg – ugh.

I love my Kubuntu (and apt) but dpkg can take a flying leap…. :)

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:23:24 +0000

Ubuntu Linux for a server? Couldn’t they decide on something better? I had a Ubuntu Linux server… its now a FreeBSD server and is much better.