On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > > Shlomi Fish wrote: > > >Should I make a plea to Linux-IL for getting us larger disks installed on > >the server? (now that we all have agreed that it is a good idea). > > > I vote for yes, but I think we should make that an organized one. I > think SCSI is much preferrable to IDE (I don't know the new high-cache > disks, so I don't know what to say about them). I think we can organize > enough money from people to buy disks for a proper raid. >
OK, I need some information about the disks. > >I can also ask Ligad if they are willing to let us use a different distro > >than RedHat. My personal preference would be Mandrake, but seem here > >prefer Debian. > > > Ok, tender subject here. People, let's try to keep calm and handle this > like adults. Please keep it 100% to the point of what we should do WITH > THE IGLU SERVER. Not what is better for your, my, or a newbie's home. > Not what is better for servers. Only what is relevant to the question at > hand, please. > > > What I don't like about Debian is their long release cycles > >(once every three years orso), > > > True problem. I, personally, think it is of minor importance for > servers, considering everything else. In any case, please consider that > when the IGLU server was last upgraded Debian Potato wasn't out yet. We > are already at woody. It seemsto me that the long upgrade cycles Debian > has are irrelevant to IGLU, whether they are important or not. > > > and the fact that they patch the original > >sources instead of upgrading, > > > That is actually a good thing for servers. It means that security > upgrades are much less likely to break something, which in turn means > that you are much more confident applying them. The only problem I am > aware of is false positives when doing vulnerability scans of the machine. > I don't think it is a good thing, because these patches are hard to maintain separately, and often the maintainer of the package cannot maintain all previous versions. > > and their non-RedHat/Mandrake'ish pathes for > >everything. > > > as far as I understood, they are the only ones that are LSB complient. I think you are wrong here. According to this: http://www.freestandards.org/news.php?id=35 Mandrake, RH and S.u.s.e are the ones that were certified LSB-compliant, so I guess Debian will have to follow suit. Debian is not on the LSB certified list: http://www.opengroup.org/lsb/cert/cert_prodlist.tpl > > But I suppose it would be better than RedHat. > > > >Regards, > > > > Shlomi Fish > > > The main reason I want Debain is that I trust their updates, both in > terms of timely provision, and in terms of reliability. I am used to > their tools, but people tell me that similar tools are available for > other platforms, so I guess I won't point that one as a reason. > Mandrake has MandrakeUpdate which is a very good tool for updating the distro, and they release updates frequently. vipe.technion.ac.il runs on Mandrake 8.1, I believe. And the new releases of Mandrake are more frequent so we can enjoy the newer software. I never tried using urpmi (Mandrake's equivalent of apt) with the Cooker package pool (which is probably a bad idea). But I compiled many Mandrake and RedHat RPMS from source. Regards, Shlomi Fish > Sh. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Home E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..." "Wait a second - is n a natural number?"
