I used Ubuntu Server for a couple of months, and then switched back to Debian. US was a little short on non-mainstream packages, and I didn't see the point in using it if I was immediately going to need the Debian repositories in the apt sources anyway.
* Drew Van Zandt Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld) Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D. Masquerade aVST * On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Bill Bogstad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Guy Gold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:14:22PM -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > >>Even just the installation process leads you to suspect this conclusion > >>- In Ubuntu, you barely have any choices, package selections, etc. It > will > >>install a GUI for you, and afterward, you can then optionally add/remove > >>packages. > > > > Greetings, I do have a lot to say about Debian,CentOS etc, but maybe > > later on :). But, with all fairness to Ubuntu server, it does let you > > have a lot of choice for which packages to install. And its basic install > > is without GUI and actually with open-ssh server along with a basic > > Linux system. I assume you referred to Ubuntu Desktop in the installation > > process. > > Ditto. The Ubuntu Desktop Live and the Server ISO are different > products. You wouldn't judge RHEL as a server platform solely on the > RedHat Desktop/Workstation ISOs and Ubuntu Server shouldn't be judged > that way either. > > Bill Bogstad > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
