On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 6/14/2011 10:06 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Benjamin Franz wrote: >>> On 06/14/2011 06:19 AM, m.roth at 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.