Ubuntu is new at the "Long term support" (LTS) business. Recently, they posted a non-working update on their repo. It rendered X inoperable. They've fixed it already, but it shows their relative "newcomer" status. I'd recommend CENTOS instead. Besides Ubuntu's repos are mostly from the unstable branch of debian. Not that it literally means unstable, but it just keeps changing so much, you never know when a bug might be introduced somewhere. Server's shouldn't have the latest and greatest software. it should have the most stable and tested ones. Desktop's are different though. Debian (stable repo) would also be good.
On 8/29/06, thad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For security you can look at centos with selinux and opensuse with novell apparmor but you can also do this with Ubuntu or any other distro. LVM is now standard in LInux there is no problem with dealing with zoning SAN and mounting LUNs with your server; you can also zone two-gigabit cards per server and avoid single point of failure and also heartbeat for high availability cluster. Actually the most significant problem that you will encounter are not about security or SPOF. If you will be using your servers for databases make sure that you tuned your system to the database requirement. DBAs ang pinkamakulit to deal with; they refuse all reasons that they are at fault for improperly tuning their databases required for the system. thad On 8/28/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:. > I want to set up a mission critical (i.e. a lot of critical > information is being shuttled to and from the server/system) solution > on Linux, and I have a choice on the distribution. > > I don't want to start a distro war (again), but I would like to know > how many people in the list will actually trust Ubuntu on the Server > as compared to something like CentOS/RHEL, SuSE, or Debian ? > > I have the following criteria for evaluation: > > * Vulnerability Assessment > * Security Update Frequency and Relevance > * Robustness (no unstable/untested software installed) > * Stability (predictable and non-erratic behavior) > * Unbloatedness (contains only essential components in base system) > * Scalability with Hardware (should support hardware for scalability > (SAN, RAID, Gigabit Ethernet Channel Bonding, Hot Swappable Drives, > Failover Power Systems Support, Clustering (HPC/HA) ) ). > > So far, for all these items Ubuntu still doesn't rank as well as > CentOS/RHEL, SuSE, and even Debian. > > I might be alone in this view, but can someone please enlighten me > about how well Ubuntu is doing on the server side? > > -- > Dean Michael C. Berris > C/C++ Software Architect > Orange and Bronze Software Labs > http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/ > http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/ > Mobile: +639287291459 > Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > -- sometimes truth is stranger than fiction -bad religion- http://www.bloglines.com/blog/mailist _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
-- Regards, Danny Ching _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
