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 ; Hello, * 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85

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

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

    Hello, *

    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?


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

    Hallo, jjg,

    Du meintest am 12.08.08:

    > 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.


    Who maintains the server: you or your colleague or some other guy (m/f/
    n)?

    At some point the differences are more religious than technical. Ubuntu
    has a bigger fan club and (therefor) better public relations.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

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


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

    jjg il 09:37, martedž 12 agosto 2008 ha scritto:

    > Hello, *
    >
    > 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?


    Ubuntu for Server.... Ah ah ah!

    You'll have to choose the "SERVER EDITION", bucause the normal version
    hasn't root!!!!

    However I never recomend UBUNTU for server, because when you install
    software, you have to install software compiled by otherone, without
    options you need and so on...

    Only with Slackware all is in your power.

    Max

    --
    Cerchi informazioni su Linux?
    Linuxpedia: http://maxint.dynalias.org


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

    Massimiliano Vessi wrote:

    > jjg il 09:37, martedž 12 agosto 2008 ha scritto:
    >
    >> Hello, *
    >>
    >> 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?

    >
    > Ubuntu for Server.... Ah ah ah!
    >
    > You'll have to choose the "SERVER EDITION", bucause the normal version
    > hasn't root!!!!


    Well, it has, although it is more or less hidden. If you do sudo passwd root
    you can set the password. And outside the GUI (with Alt-F1 etc.) you can
    still login as root.

    >
    > However I never recomend UBUNTU for server, because when you install
    > software, you have to install software compiled by otherone, without
    > options you need and so on...


    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...

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

    Hallo, jjg,

    Du meintest am 12.08.08:

    >> Ubuntu for Server.... Ah ah ah!
    >>
    >> You'll have to choose the "SERVER EDITION", bucause the normal
    >> version hasn't root!!!!


    [...]

    >> Only with Slackware all is in your power.


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


    Slackware is designed for servers, Ubuntu is designed for end user
    desktops (a kind of playstation ...).

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

    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?

    jjg wrote:

    > 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.


    Would that be the same group that screwed with openSSL?

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

    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.


    So you know more about Slackware? Then use Slack.

    > However, my colleague is "in Ubuntu". In his
    > opinion, Slackware is a small and vulnerable organization, and Ubuntu
    > has a more robust backing.


    That's actually true to some extent. PV and the Slackware team do a
    great job but don't have comparable resources to Canonical.

    Does this actually matter to you in any way? Are you going to take out
    support contracts with either organisation?

    > 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.

    > 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?


    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.

    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
    alto.os.linux.ubuntu....

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

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:50:36 +0000, Massimiliano Vessi wrote:

    > jjg il 09:37, martedì 12 agosto 2008 ha scritto:
    >
    >> Hello, *
    >>
    >> 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?

    >
    > Ubuntu for Server.... Ah ah ah!
    >
    > You'll have to choose the "SERVER EDITION", bucause the normal version
    > hasn't root!!!!


    Nonsense. Disabled by default, yes. It takes 20 seconds to enable it.

    > However I never recomend UBUNTU for server, because when you install
    > software, you have to install software compiled by otherone, without
    > options you need and so on...


    Nonsense. You can build software on almost any Linux distro, although
    there may be differences in the build process.

    > Only with Slackware all is in your power.


    Nonsense. You can like Slackware. I like Slackware. But that statement
    is still nonsense.


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

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:26:03 +0200, jjg wrote:

    >> Only with Slackware all is in your power.

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


    There is a key difference between the package management systems: if you
    use apt, you may not know (without a fair bit of work) everything that is
    being installed on your server, whereas if you use Slackware's bare
    pkgtool you know exactly what is on the system. This may be a
    significant consideration if you are the sort of person who keeps decent
    logs.

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

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:30:00 +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:

    >>> Only with Slackware all is in your power.

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

    >
    > Slackware is designed for servers, Ubuntu is designed for end user
    > desktops (a kind of playstation ...).


    Sorry Helmut, but that's nonsense. Just because Ubuntu's desktop
    editions are popular doesn't mean that they are the base design. They
    aren't.

    > 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.

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

    Hallo, Mark,

    Du meintest am 12.08.08:

    >> 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?

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

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


  12. 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 ...

    >
    >> 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?


    You are evil, Helmut. ;-)

    -- Simon

    "SuSE --- it's crap gone public. Sign the petition against the
    proliferation of crap - NOW!"

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

    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?

    See sig block for more.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


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

    Dan C wrote:
    > 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?


    OTOH would you really want to spend time with people who've never had any
    experince with ubuntu server edition, but still have strong enough opinions
    on it that they ridicule you for using it?


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

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

    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
    evil. And to think there other distros that get knocked for generating
    rabid fanboi-isms.

    Interestingly, it is possible to admire and appreciate Slackware without
    disengaging any critical faculties at all.

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

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:03:09 +0000, Joost Kremers wrote:

    > Dan C wrote:
    >> 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?

    >
    > OTOH would you really want to spend time with people who've never had any
    > experince with ubuntu server edition, but still have strong enough
    > opinions on it that they ridicule you for using it?


    No, I wouldn't.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


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

    In article <48a13dd4$0$191$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
    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.


    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?

    > Moreover, Ubuntu uses the (huge) Debian libraries.


    Debian (and hence Ubuntu) are designed by committee, and it shows.
    Slackware's small team is an advantage that way.

    > 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?


    It's the most sysadmin-friendly distribution:

    * KISS: The system is kept as simple as possible for doing the task at
    hand, which keeps administration manageable.

    * A fairly unique feature is that the base installation is complete by
    default. Nothing (such as libraries or "development" headers) is
    missing, so everything just works without having to install loads of
    dependencies. That makes automatic dependency resolution unnecessary.

    * The configuration files are in plain text, and not encapsulated in
    XML, binary registries, or other complications. You always have the
    choice to use tools for configuration or manipulate the config files
    directly.

    * All this makes it fairly simple to add any library or program you're
    missing yourself.

    Hope this helps.

    - Martijn

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

    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'? 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? If you can answer all the
    above to your own satisfaction, then you can make up your mind about
    which distro to use on your server.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

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

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:09:23 +0200, Martijn Dekker wrote:

    > In article <48a13dd4$0$191$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
    > 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.

    >
    > 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.

    >> Moreover, Ubuntu uses the (huge) Debian libraries.

    >
    > Debian (and hence Ubuntu) are designed by committee, and it shows.
    > Slackware's small team is an advantage that way.


    Didn't we have this flamewar only a few weeks ago over openSSL? They are
    designed for different goals, and the choice is in the area where they
    overlap. The size of the teams matters nothing compared to choosing what
    one knows how to work and keep working.

    >> 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?

    >
    > It's the most sysadmin-friendly distribution:
    >
    > * KISS: The system is kept as simple as possible for doing the task at
    > hand, which keeps administration manageable.


    This is actually a pretty solid point in favour of Slackware.

    > * A fairly unique feature is that the base installation is complete by
    > default. Nothing (such as libraries or "development" headers) is
    > missing, so everything just works without having to install loads of
    > dependencies. That makes automatic dependency resolution unnecessary.


    Also a good point in favour, although a server may in fact be more secure
    without development tools.

    And on Debian, "aptitude install build-essential" isn't exactly rocket
    science if one decides one needs the development kit.

    > * The configuration files are in plain text, and not encapsulated in
    > XML, binary registries, or other complications. You always have the
    > choice to use tools for configuration or manipulate the config files
    > directly.


    The same is true of the majority of other major Linux distros, including
    Debian and Ubuntu.

    > * All this makes it fairly simple to add any library or program you're
    > missing yourself.


    This is not really a distinguishing feature.

    The question I'd like to see the OP answer (and soon, or it will look
    like a troll) is which they would be more comfortable with and are more
    knowledgeable in. That's what really counts for a server.

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

    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... 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"?


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


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