On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, 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 using ruby on rails, and the other admin has to compile it from source, because they, I mean, just *have* to have the latest version, and another team has a customized version of some software that is either licensed, or open source, don't remember, that's all in java, and then there's the parallel processing programs....
But the first two, esp the first, are *incredibly* fragile, and I've seen that in other places I've worked. Then there was the grief I had on a box that's only used for offline backups on encrytped drives, and going from 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 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 alpha/beta versions intending to lead up to RHEL after a lot of 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,
Okay, so you don't have to pay for LTS but unless I am mistaken, Canonical only offers paid support for LTS releases.
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.
Non-LTS are virtually the same as Fedora releases; experimental releases. Even some LTS releases get pushed out the door with major bugs in various packages. The only plus is that it is possible to do major-rev upgrades provided that you do not use third-party repos.
Every Ubuntu release has been fraught with the screams of victims who had their dist-upgrade blow up in their face whether LTS or non-LTS release. Okay, I personally have not had major problems, but it sure does not inspire confidence.