On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 06:01:23PM +1000, Zhasper wrote: > I love ubuntu as a great no frills desktop. It installs, it works, it does > most of the things I need with little configuration. > > You're not running a no-frills desktop though; you're other running a small > household server (the mythtv/gateway machine you mentioned) or 1000s of POS > systems. Not what Ubuntu is designed for, not something it's going to be > good at. > > Hammers are great tools, but don't work when you need to tighten a screw. > Ubuntu is a great no-frills simple desktop, but won't work when you have > complex/rare needs or need to run servers.
What makes it such a poor choice? It's virtually Debian, just with a preconfigured desktop enviroment and other niceties. It probably makes just as much sense to use Debian if you're building a custom desktop environment, with, say, fvwm and stuff, but the packages are certainly there in Ubuntu, and the 6 month release cycle can make maintanance a shitload easier. I've been using it for ages now in such environments, and for most cases, it's a _shitload_ easier than playing run stable/testing with odd packages from unstable. I cringe at the late days of running woody environments. Can you elaborate on your claim that it "won't work when you have complex/rare needs or need to run servers" (especially considering the Ubuntu team aim _specifially_ for the datacentre market, and make this very clear)? R -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
