On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Michael Olson wrote: > Aaron Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'll put in a big request for this NOT to happen. I've dealt with >> some Ubuntu installations and I can't say that I really enjoy them. >> They seem to also have way to high of an overhead for what you get. >> If we actually wanted the things that we could get with that >> overhead, then maybe, but it seems like a complete waste. While >> we're talking about something like this (not that it's going to >> change anything) my personal preference would be to see either >> Slackware or OpenBSD on one of the servers; of course Debian is as >> good as any, and it's a very nice system, no reason really to change >> it that I see. > > That may be your experience with Ubuntu, but I assure you that a > Ubuntu installation does not necessarily have to be bloated, similarly > to a Debian installation. I'm not talking about doing a full live CD > install, complete with the X Server and GNOME -- far from it! What I > propose is taking just the packages that we need, and that are > relevant to a server environment. Think of our current Debian setup, > basically, but with newer versions of each package.
I probably missed this discussed somewhere, but is there a reason that we need these newer packages? I don't know enough about Ubuntu to know what the system level differences are when it comes down to custom tuned installations. My gut feeling would be that the goals of Debian stable are probably more in line with the goals I would have for the servers, but whether these are the same goals of other people are an entirely different matter. -- Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ HCoop-SysAdmin mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-sysadmin
