Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server? - Slackware ; On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:51 -0500, Dan C wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:11:22 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote: > >>> Slackware is the oldest Linux distribution still alive. It's backed by >>> a commercial organization, Slackware Linux, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 85

Thread: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

  1. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:51 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:11:22 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    >>> Slackware is the oldest Linux distribution still alive. It's backed by
    >>> a commercial organization, Slackware Linux, Inc., that doesn't waste
    >>> effort on marketing fluff and just churns out solid versions of
    >>> Slackware from time to time. How much more robust can you get?

    >
    >> You make a good point, but the real question is whether the OP wants to
    >> be able to buy support, which narrows the realistic choice to Red Hat,
    >> Novell, or Canonical.

    >
    > It was a good point, and you are making a lot of assumptions...


    It's a conclusion rather than an assumption.

    > Where
    > in the OP's post do you see anything about whether he wants to be able
    > to "buy support"? What makes you think that is the "real question"?


    Because if he's already familiar with Slackware, and knows how to achieve
    the immediate goals with it, why else would he even ask about Ubuntu?
    His colleague can only be concerned about support, and the only
    compelling difference would be paid support. Otherwise it's a matter of
    wading through large volumes of forum and usenet postings, regardless of
    distro.

  2. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Two Ravens wrote:

    > jjg wrote:
    >
    >> Could you be more specific on that? I mean, my experiences with Ubuntu
    >> are not bad. I still have a preference for Slackware, however.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Only with Slackware all is in your power.

    >>
    >> That is my main consideration, but it has so far failed to convince my
    >> colleague...

    >
    > Is this a 'colleague' or a boss, is the decision up to you? Why do you
    > need to convince your 'colleague'?


    Because we have to cooperate?

    > Why do you need to seek validation
    > from newsgroup full of people you don't know? Did you expect a
    > Slackware newsgroup to recommend Ubuntu?


    Basically, I hoped for some really strong arguments in favor of Slackware.


  3. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-12, Mark Madsen wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:37:56 +0200, jjg wrote:
    >
    >> Moreover, Ubuntu uses the (huge) Debian libraries.

    >
    > This is a pretty silly distiction unless you are trying to squeeze the
    > install onto a 2GB disk, in which case you have worse problems that need
    > to be solved than this one.


    Perhaps the OP or his colleague wants access to those huge Debian
    libraries. I have to admit it can be a hassle to gather some of the
    more specialized libraries that other distros carry but Slackware
    doesn't.

    > The only real questions in the decision tree are:
    >
    > A. Do you need a support contract? If so, it probably has to be Ubuntu.
    >
    > B. Which of you and your colleague will be primarily responsible for the
    > server?
    >
    > C. Choose whichever you are most familiar/comfortable with.


    I wholeheartedly agree with this tree. Whoever will be more responsible
    should get the final say. It's not like Ubuntu is awful, and if the OP is
    familiar with apt and dpkg, he should be fine. (I personally dislike
    apt, but I strongly suspect PEBKAC.)

    The upshot of this is, if it will be the OP maintaining the server, he
    should simply put his foot down if he so chooses; no convincing of his
    colleague should be necessary. But if it will be the colleague, the OP
    should acquiesce to his colleague's wishes. Unless the OP doesn't
    trust his colleague, of course. But then he should be talking with
    their supervisor.

    > In the rest of the thread, there has been a large amount of (amazing)
    > misinformation supplied in response to your query. The only way to get
    > even less accurate information would have been to post your question to
    > alt.os.linux.ubuntu....


    Cute.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  4. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:25:51 -0500, Dan C wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:11:22 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Slackware is the oldest Linux distribution still alive. It's backed by
    >>>> a commercial organization, Slackware Linux, Inc., that doesn't waste
    >>>> effort on marketing fluff and just churns out solid versions of
    >>>> Slackware from time to time. How much more robust can you get?

    >>
    >>> You make a good point, but the real question is whether the OP wants to
    >>> be able to buy support, which narrows the realistic choice to Red Hat,
    >>> Novell, or Canonical.

    >>
    >> It was a good point, and you are making a lot of assumptions...

    >
    > It's a conclusion rather than an assumption.
    >
    >> Where
    >> in the OP's post do you see anything about whether he wants to be able
    >> to "buy support"? What makes you think that is the "real question"?

    >
    > Because if he's already familiar with Slackware, and knows how to achieve
    > the immediate goals with it, why else would he even ask about Ubuntu?
    > His colleague can only be concerned about support, and the only
    > compelling difference would be paid support. Otherwise it's a matter of
    > wading through large volumes of forum and usenet postings, regardless of
    > distro.


    I think, now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the discussion so far, I
    have seen quite a few good points.

    To explain further: my colleague comes from the Windows world, and of course
    Ubuntu is at least a step into the right direction (and I think it is not
    all that bad ;-) ). However, with his strong MS background he really
    believes in big companies which guarantee support, and which you can sue
    (if you can afford better lawyers, that is). And of course, he does not yet
    fully realize how open source works.

    I have a deep mistrust in large organizations, and I do not think lawyers
    will help you anywhere. Moreover, you do not pay for Linux, so suing is
    generally difficult. Finally, as Martijn said, Debian (and Ubuntu) are
    designed by committee-- that may be another argument against larger
    companies.

    However, I think that he (my colleague) has a point w.r.t. the Slackware
    organization. Not that it would be unprofessional, definitely not, but at
    least it is quite dependent on one single person, and if that person dies,
    what will happen to Slackware? I do not think that anybody knows.

    Then of course, the question is whether I want to buy support. Well, of
    course not, if I did need it, I would never have chosen Slackware in the
    first place. And I do not believe our (small) organization could afford a
    lot of paid support.

    But continuity is a point in case, and I would be happy with any pointers on
    this subject. Basically, I think/hope that the question is moot; I have
    worked with Ubuntu as well as with Slackware (as well as with SuSe, ...),
    and I am pretty convinced that I can change distros fairly painlessly, if
    need be. But, moot as it may be, is is to be taken seriously.

    I have seen a few interesting points in the dicussion:
    - Slackware takes a KISS approach
    - Slackware has all its config info in plain text
    - Slackware is fairly complete "as installed", hence no need to resolve
    dependencies as other distros have

    I have not seen any comments on the fact that Ubuntu has a patched kernel. I
    am strongly against that; I see kernel patches as a first step to forking
    or vendor lock-in. They may be a necessary evil, but I do not see what
    Ubuntu needs them for. Any other views on this point?
    I also tried to build my own kernel under Ubuntu, and it failed because one
    library was missing; I have not yet taken too much trouble to find it
    anywhere, but it suggests that building your own kernel is not usual in the
    Ubuntu world. Well, it getting less and less usual under Slackware, I must
    admit...

    I would like to see some commentary on security updates: they exist, also
    for Slackware, and you have tools to get them. However, these tools do not
    seem to have an official status (e.g. swaret). There are even tools under
    development to tap into the Debian resources (slapt-get; I do not yet have
    experience with it).

    Of course, Slackware, with about one release per year, needs a channel for
    security updates; on the other hand, I have also some doubtful experiences
    with automatic updates on Ubuntu systems (but, then, on a server you do not
    want that anyway).

    I think that, in passing, I have also given a fair summary of the discussion
    so far. Please keep up the good work, thanks in retrospect and in advance.

  5. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Hallo, jjg,

    Du meintest am 12.08.08:

    > However, I think that he (my colleague) has a point w.r.t. the
    > Slackware organization. Not that it would be unprofessional,
    > definitely not, but at least it is quite dependent on one single
    > person,


    As I've read there are some other people near to Volker who may continue
    his (good) work.
    And as I've read some Debian packets also have only 1 guy who has to do
    all the work. Some time ago one of the backporters mourned about being
    nearly alone with too much work.

    > I would like to see some commentary on security updates: they exist,
    > also for Slackware, and you have tools to get them.


    I don't need any tool. Every 3 to 10 days looking to the "Changelog.txt"
    and the "* Security fix *" lines: for such work I don't need a tool.

    > Of course, Slackware, with about one release per year, needs a
    > channel for security updates; on the other hand, I have also some
    > doubtful experiences with automatic updates on Ubuntu systems (but,
    > then, on a server you do not want that anyway).


    Slackware allows you to install only those packets you have chosen.
    There is no machine which tells you what to do.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  6. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Helmut Hullen wrote:

    >
    > A server doesn't need v4l, it doesn't need ALSA etc.
    > It even doesn't need a GUI ...
    >


    Try to install oracle databse without GUI...

    --
    Artur 'Bzyk' Frydel | artur.frydel-KICK_THIS@gmail.com
    In /dev/null no one can hear your scream

  7. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    jjg wrote:

    >
    > I would like to see some commentary on security updates: they exist, also
    > for Slackware, and you have tools to get them. However, these tools do not
    > seem to have an official status (e.g. swaret). There are even tools under
    > development to tap into the Debian resources (slapt-get; I do not yet have
    > experience with it).
    >


    You can find slackpkg package in official distribution;
    http://packages.slackware.it/search....t=1&q=slackpkg

    And notice that in slackware there's a looong time to serve security
    updates. For example, last time there were security update for fetchmail
    (from Slackware 8.1). I do not know how it is in Ubuntu, but in Debian for
    example there's security update only for stable and old stable versions..
    I think that this can be a good argument in talking about vendor
    quarantee.




    --
    Artur 'Bzyk' Frydel | artur.frydel-KICK_THIS@gmail.com
    In /dev/null no one can hear your scream

  8. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    jjg wrote:
    > However, I think that he (my colleague) has a point w.r.t. the Slackware
    > organization. Not that it would be unprofessional, definitely not, but at
    > least it is quite dependent on one single person, and if that person dies,
    > what will happen to Slackware? I do not think that anybody knows.


    whatever happens to it, it won't happen over night, so you'll have time to
    consider your options, see if someone takes over or change distros if you
    feel that would be wiser.

    > I have seen a few interesting points in the dicussion:
    > - Slackware takes a KISS approach
    > - Slackware has all its config info in plain text


    well, the config files generally belong to the programs that need them, so
    i don't see why this would be a big difference between slack and any other
    distro. mutt has plain-text config files, regardless of whether it runs on
    slack or on ubuntu. xfce has xml config files, and it does so on slackware
    as well as on ubuntu.

    perhaps what you're talking about is some system-wide config file, similar
    to what suse has (or used to have, back in the day; don't know if they
    still do). but then that's hardly a meaningful comparison, because slack
    doesn't have such a config file, so it's pointless to say that it's not
    xml.

    now, i don't know if ubuntu has such a system-wide config, but if it does,
    that might be taken as an advantage, even if it is in xml,[1] depending on
    your needs and wishes. it (probably) means that there is a centralised
    config utility, and even though as a slacker i wouldn't be thrilled by
    that, some will see that differently.

    > - Slackware is fairly complete "as installed", hence no need to resolve
    > dependencies as other distros have


    i don't see what this means, either. if you have ubuntu "as installed", i'm
    sure it'll be fairly complete as well, with no dependencies needing to be
    resolved.

    > I have not seen any comments on the fact that Ubuntu has a patched kernel.


    you might want to see how much they actually patch the kernel? it seems the
    patching-the-kernel fad went out of style years ago, when the new
    development model was introduced with the 2.6 kernel and new dashing
    features started making it to mainline much faster than before. there are
    still patches, but it appears they are much less dramatic than they used to
    be.

    > I
    > am strongly against that; I see kernel patches as a first step to forking
    > or vendor lock-in.


    that really depends on what they patch, of course.

    > They may be a necessary evil, but I do not see what
    > Ubuntu needs them for. Any other views on this point?
    > I also tried to build my own kernel under Ubuntu, and it failed because one
    > library was missing; I have not yet taken too much trouble to find it
    > anywhere, but it suggests that building your own kernel is not usual in the
    > Ubuntu world. Well, it getting less and less usual under Slackware, I must
    > admit...


    before turning this into an argument against ubuntu, you should at least
    try and figure out what was missing and why. there might be a perfectly
    good reason for it.

    point is, slackware and ubuntu have different philosophies. that obviously
    leads to differences between the distros. deciding between the two should
    be done based on needs and preferences.


    Footnotes:
    [1] don't get me wrong here. i tend to think of xml config files as an
    abomination.

    --
    Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
    Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
    EN:SiS(9)

  9. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-12, Helmut Hullen wrote:
    >
    > Slackware allows you to install only those packets you have chosen.
    > There is no machine which tells you what to do.


    Look, this is just FUD. You can install exactly what packages you want
    with apt (or rpm/yum) by ignoring the dependencies. The difference is
    that Ubuntu has a program which makes suggestions, and Slackware
    doesn't; you're free to ignore the suggestions if you want.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  10. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-12, jjg wrote:
    >
    > But continuity is a point in case, and I would be happy with any pointers on
    > this subject. Basically, I think/hope that the question is moot; I have
    > worked with Ubuntu as well as with Slackware (as well as with SuSe, ...),
    > and I am pretty convinced that I can change distros fairly painlessly, if
    > need be.


    I think you can. I admin Slackware, CentOS, and Debian/Ubuntu boxes,
    all fairly easily. You'd have to learn the quirks unique to each
    distro, but there really aren't all that many, despite what anyone here
    or elsewhere will tell you.

    The question remains, whose job is it to maintain this box?

    Based on your description of your colleague, it sounds like it's yours,
    so you should be the one making the decision. And since you say that
    paid support is likely not an option, that rules out another big
    factor in Ubuntu's favor. Based on your other points, I'd definitely
    suggest sticking with Slackware.

    One point you might make on your colleague is that, IMO of course, it's
    easier to go from Slackware to another distro than from, say, Ubuntu to
    RedHat or SuSE or Slackware, precisely because of Slackware's KISS
    philosophy. If he masters Slackware, he'll be able to admin another
    linux box easily.

    > I have not seen any comments on the fact that Ubuntu has a patched kernel.


    I suspect that's personal preference. And your colleague won't be able
    to tell the difference (initially) anyway. It is a factor, but I doubt
    it'll help you persuade him to Slackware.

    > Of course, Slackware, with about one release per year, needs a channel for
    > security updates;


    Slackware has a security mailing list, which you should subscribe to if
    you want these alerts. There are very few messages sent per month, as
    you can imagine.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  11. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-12, Joost Kremers wrote:
    >
    > well, the config files generally belong to the programs that need them, so
    > i don't see why this would be a big difference between slack and any other
    > distro.


    I believe that RHEL and possibly Ubuntu can save certain configurations
    into an XML file, then generate a proper config file for the application
    in question, and lace it with all sorts of warnings like "DO NOT EDIT
    THIS FILE, AUTO-GENERATED BY CRAPWARE 3.0". This is just one example of
    problems one might encounter with other distributions, which often use
    custom arguments and patches when building software (not just the kernel!).

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  12. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    jjg wrote:

    > Because we have to cooperate?


    From what you write above it appears that you will not so much have to
    cooperate, but show him how to administer the system, in which case
    show him how to use the system you are happiest with, presumably
    Slackware.

    >> Why do you need to seek validation
    >> from newsgroup full of people you don't know? Did you expect a
    >> Slackware newsgroup to recommend Ubuntu?

    >
    > Basically, I hoped for some really strong arguments in favor of
    > Slackware.


    It seems to have lasted longer than any other distribution, with Debian
    running second to it, why would you want to use Ubuntu which is a
    derivative of the latter. As you say that there is not the scope for
    bought in support, go with what you know. As you say your colleague is
    coming to this from Microsoft, it may well be that what he knows is
    that Ubuntu is the GNU/Linux distribution that is getting the
    publicity, and is basing a decision on hyperbole. Again I'd stick with
    what you know and are used to.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  13. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Replying to OP, I never say the OP post (must be googlegrouper)

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Dan C wrote:

    >
    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:37:56 +0200, jjg wrote:
    >
    >> I am about to install a brand new server. Of course Slackware, at least as
    >> far a I am concerned. However, my colleague is "in Ubuntu". In his
    >> opinion, Slackware is a small and vulnerable organization, and Ubuntu has
    >> a more robust backing. Moreover, Ubuntu uses the (huge) Debian libraries.
    >> I have quite a bit of experience with Ubuntu, not at all bad, but I still
    >> prefer Slackware, mainly because it has a clear structure of startup
    >> files, an unpatched kernel, and a good and stable collection of tools. Can
    >> anybody give me more ammo?

    >
    > If you were to use Ubuntu on a server, you'd have to live with the
    > ridicule and contempt of all who know you. Your reputation would be
    > tainted forever, and you would be looked down upon for making such a
    > n00bish error. Bottom line is: would you tell anyone in public that your
    > server used Ubuntu? Would you, really?



    Not to mention Ubuntu is just a differently named debian, hell, 85% of
    ubuntus developers ARE debian maintainers, explains why it is just as
    screwed, would you trust a bunch of unknowns, or the small select few
    maintaining Slackwares updates? Still not sure, well ask yourself this,
    do you recall a couple months ago debians "we know beter than upstream"
    with the openssl debacle, the one that saw not only every debian/ubuntu
    and related distros vulnerable, but also any certificates generated on
    those systems regardless of what distro or OS you are using.
    The fact debian/ubnuntu issue brand new releases with year outdated
    software (that is not even TESTED to work) is another big worry.


    The fact they have 30 security updates a week is testiment to how much
    they hack code (again thinking they know better than upstream) and then
    find out its exploitable, (but in all fairness RedHat/CentOS/Fedora and
    other RH based distros, like wise SuSE are just as guilty in this area
    as well) but yet Slackware that follows only upstream, has little or no
    problems because they dont hack code in and out of package X, they dont
    take a single package, say bind or sendmail as just two simple examples,
    and turn it into 15 different smaller packages.

    And as for anything else, as an experiemnt I have put slackware and Fedora
    and Ubuntu on a laptop, its hardware is from the 2005 era, ubuntu cant
    control the poweroff/hibernating, its not only because laptop tools
    package is hacked and had the bejebus ripped out of its guts, even
    gnome-power-manager doesnt work, I got sick of trying to adjust times and
    percentages like some ubuntu fan boys(girls) reckon works, it doesnt,
    now, no other distro I've used had problems with this, only ubuntu, in
    fact all ubuntu said about it was " your batery must be old" well, the
    hardware might be 3 years old, but the battery was replaced in November
    07, and gives me 3 plus hours usage.. shows how much they really know,
    anyway, did I fix it on ubuntu? Yes, you know how? pissed off their
    hacked-to-****house version and used the upstreams gnome version and
    voila!

    Finally if you are converting winblows weenies to Linux who know nothing
    more than point and pray, then Ubuntu would be good for them ( Fedora
    would be as well except they are too politcal) and with a couple confirms
    ubuntu automatically gets any restricted drivers etc for them. However
    for experienced Linux users, Slacware is fine for desktop and notebook.
    As for severs, it will be over my dead body that any ubuntu/debian server
    enters into my data center! (except unmnagaged colo of course hehe), The
    only downtime I've ever had with Slackware was occasional disk failure
    which can hardly be blamed on Slack now can it



    --
    Cheers
    Res

    "The hopes we had, were much to high, way out of reach, but we have to
    try, no need to hide, no need to run, cause all the answers come one by
    one. The game will never be over, because we're keeping the dream alive"
    -Freiheit

  14. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Mark Madsen wrote:

    >
    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:51:19 +0200, Simon Sibbez wrote:
    >
    >> Helmut Hullen wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> A server doesn't need v4l, it doesn't need ALSA etc. It even doesn't
    >>>>> need a GUI ...
    >>>
    >>>> Quite true. And amazingly, you don't have to install any of those,
    >>>> whether you use Slackware, or Ubuntu, or Suse, or Debian, or
    >>>> Scientific Linux or whatever.
    >>>
    >>> Have you ever tried to install SuSE 10.x or SuSE 11.0 without a GUI?

    >
    > Nope. Are you accepting that the others give you the choice?
    >
    >> You are evil, Helmut. ;-)

    >


    > Wow. Ubuntu "doesn't have a root account" and now Suse is officially


    It has a root account, all you gotta do is give it a password

    I refuse to use sudo, as by deault with ubuntu, it caches the password for
    X period of time, so I could : sudo -i ... stuff around ... "exit"
    back to my user terminal, go get a coffee and come back to find someone has
    typed: sudo -i ... got in without re entering password ... rm -rf /*

    Sure you can disable caching, but my point is it should be disabled by
    default, its a security joke.


    --
    Cheers
    Res

    "The hopes we had, were much to high, way out of reach, but we have to
    try, no need to hide, no need to run, cause all the answers come one by
    one. The game will never be over, because we're keeping the dream alive"
    -Freiheit

  15. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-12, Peter Chant wrote:
    > Keith Keller wrote:
    >
    >> I believe that RHEL and possibly Ubuntu can save certain configurations
    >> into an XML file, then generate a proper config file for the application
    >> in question, and lace it with all sorts of warnings like "DO NOT EDIT
    >> THIS FILE, AUTO-GENERATED BY CRAPWARE 3.0". This is just one example of
    >> problems one might encounter with other distributions, which often use
    >> custom arguments and patches when building software (not just the
    >> kernel!).

    >
    > If backing up the config is the issue what is wrong in slack with just
    > tar-ing /etc? I think practially all my config is in there except for
    > bind - which I am sure I could move in there if it bothered me.


    I think the issue is not backing up the config files, but modifying
    them. If you modify /etc/resolv.conf, then some automated tool comes
    along and hoses it, you might be somewhat upset.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  16. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    According to Helmut Hullen :
    > "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


    I love this one


  17. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    According to Helmut Hullen :

    > > Quite true. And amazingly, you don't have to install any of those,
    > > whether you use Slackware, or Ubuntu, or Suse, or Debian, or
    > > Scientific Linux or whatever.

    >
    > Have you ever tried to install SuSE 10.x or SuSE 11.0 without a GUI?


    I did several times at work. It is finally pretty easy since SuSE can
    be installed using an "answer file" (for silent installation). In the
    end, our SuSE never have GUIs at all.

    Xavier


  18. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    According to Artur Frydel :
    > Helmut Hullen wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > A server doesn't need v4l, it doesn't need ALSA etc.
    > > It even doesn't need a GUI ...
    > >

    >
    > Try to install oracle databse without GUI...


    Are you serious ? This is something possible and we do...

    GUIs are crap for n00b.

    Xavier


  19. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    On 2008-08-13, Res wrote:
    > Replying to OP, I never say the OP post (must be googlegrouper)


    Nope.

    > Finally if you are converting winblows weenies to Linux who know nothing
    > more than point and pray, then Ubuntu would be good for them ( Fedora
    > would be as well except they are too politcal)


    I would never recommend a beta (or alpha) product like Fedora to a
    newbie. CentOS is a freely available RHEL clone that would be much
    better suited than Fedora to someone just starting out.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  20. Re: Can (or should) I try to avoid Ubuntu server?

    Hallo, Keith,

    Du meintest am 12.08.08:

    >> Slackware allows you to install only those packets you have chosen.
    >> There is no machine which tells you what to do.


    > Look, this is just FUD. You can install exactly what packages you
    > want with apt (or rpm/yum) by ignoring the dependencies. The
    > difference is that Ubuntu has a program which makes suggestions, and
    > Slackware doesn't; you're free to ignore the suggestions if you want.


    I've tried to ignore the machine (SuSE): more and more warnings and
    error messages. And after 2 months it's hard to remember wether the
    error message is related to my ignoring the dependencoes or to a new
    problem.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast