On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig White <craig.white at ttiltd.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use. >>> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that isn't >>> overloaded with bloat from the very start. Setting up a new VMWare image >>> w/ Ubuntu Server takes at most 10 minutes whereas doing the same w/ >>> CentOS 5 takes almost an hour (easier just to clone my base install copy >>> kept for just that purpose). >>> >>> I actually use Fedora for my Desktop. It dual boots to Ubuntu but I >>> don't often use it. The only reason that I ever saw people using Fedora >>> for production was because the RHEL/CentOS software packages were so >>> completely out-of-date. >> >> Both CentOS and Ubuntu server installs take as long for me. Are you >> comparing similar levels of install?! > > I am generally interested in a basic install. On this Macintosh, > VMWare Fusion, installing 64 bit Ubuntu-server-amd64 it's about 10 > minutes. Installing 64 bit CentOS 5.6 x86_64 took about an hour. I > didn't time anything but I remember clearly. Of course the install from > Ubuntu was a single CD iso and CentOS was a DVD iso and the > bandwidth at my office is extremely good. > > A similar install is difficult since Ubuntu will have to indicate that > you want to install even openssh-server and CentOS (noting that > many of the decisions emanate from upstream) by default puts > on a full GUI and you have to knowingly trim down the packages > to attempt to minimize the installation. I don't really understand what you're doing but Ubuntu server and CentOS with a GUI are certainly not the same installs. For me the Ubuntu equivalent of a kickstart "@base" install and a CentOS kickstart "@base" install take pretty much the same time.