Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Timeliness, dunno. Ubuntu (or fedora) for production? NOT IF I HAVE ANY CONTROL!!! Given how many developers write incredibly fragile code, that is utterly dependent upon a very, very special environment, I guarantee that the almost daily updates will break it, or the New Features! will have changed interfaces....
<snip> > And AppArmor has yet to 'knee-cap' me like SELinux has (repeatedly) by > breaking previously stable systems. Where I routinely disable SELinux > on CentOS, I have yet to have AppArmor interfere with normal ops - ever. > It "just works".
Ok... do you have in-house developed software? I've got one team that's
<snip>
10? 11? to 13 was a nightmare, and X wouldn't work until I got rid of gnome, and put KDE on....
I want solid and stable.
I don't get the comparisons. Do you have some specific bad experience
I guess you don't. Let's start out this way, by defining my use of the word "fragile": this is where software is utterly dependent upon the runtime environment, and on the versions of the executables and libraries they use, and where a sub-release may carry a change in it that breaks the damn thing, because they're using some experimental function (sorry, "method"), or their stuff worked only because some error checking wasn't enabled, and the data and code fell through and worked, and the new version caught it and died.
with LTS to make this relevant? If you are building stuff from source, the distribution packages are basically irrelevant - and in java the whole OS is mostly irrelevant. Fedora releases are rather clearly
Nope - the O/S and all the packages with it *are* the environment that I refer to.
alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of
Yeah, but some people appear to think (or at least that was what I got from the post of the guy I was replying to) that fedora is good enough for production.
bugfix/QA work to stabilize it. But ubuntu isn't like that - they don't push stuff out just to get testing for some later money making release, it is the best they can do in the first place with an emphasis on ease of installation and use. The LTS versions are even designed to do major-rev upgrades over the network - and it has worked on the machines where I've tried it.
Ok, I *only* heard of the desktop emphasis, and that's what I see on my netbook remix. I have not heard of LTS before, or that it was intended for servers. Still, if it has updates as frequently as my netbook does, that would make me nervous about a production environment.
I'll stick with CentOS...oh, that's right, I should only make comments like that on a CentOS list....
mark