Post a Comment
Although not specifically an 'Ubuntu' manual the heritage is hard to hide. This should probably perform adequately:
http://www.us.debian.org/doc/
(ubuntu-universe and debian) apt-get-able:
debian-reference-en
I'm using Ubuntu (the desktop release) as a server already. My problem is that the server software pacakges it uses are a little old compared to the very up to date packages of the desktop software. For example, Samba is at 3.0.14 while the current release is 3.0.20 and the upgrade fixes problems with OS X clients (which I need) and subversion is at 1.2.0 while 1.2.3 has been out for a while...
Not deal breakers by any means, but it shows that maybe not as much time/effort is spent on the server as the desktop. And a server OS definately needs a lot of attention from its developers.
Yes it is news, particularly for me, since I have been using Ubuntu at my work on desktops, but with CentOS server. Now we can try out the Ubuntu server, see if it fits, possibly make the switch to keep a homogeneous ambient.
I think you should think about the other readers of this site, not only about you.
And even if you think, and you find it irritating, save it for yourself, everyone will dislike you for being a troll and you'll probably get modded down anyway.
I already run stock Hoary as low-end server between DSL and LAN. Works rather well, on an EPIA-M6000. I had some very occasional PPP service failure and the ghostscript has not been perfectly faithful with all PDFs, but so far the base system proved perfectly stable doing its little serving.
For tiny networks like mine, I can recommend "dnsmasq" for the DNS and DHCP services instead of getting bind and dhcpd up to speed. It's in "universe". By the time you have found out "caching-nameserver" are the google buzzwords for bind setups of this kind, you have your whole LAN running on it.
Will CUPS be easier to remote-admin than in the desktop version (where it more or less refuses that)?
Rich
So are they tring to make sure there's no reason at all for Debian to continue?
Huh? So you think that Ubuntu is automatically better than Debian in everything they do? I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. Ubuntu has its strengths and weaknesses and so does Debian. You are free to choose which distro suits your needs better.
Debian is the second oldest existing GNU/Linux distro (after Slackware) and it still has exactly the same reasons to continue as it has always had, and Ubuntu (or any other distro) cannot affect those reasons in any way. Ubuntu is just one of the many, many distros that are based on Debian.
So much for Debian on the server, Ubuntu on the desktop.
Don't be so narrow-minded. There are lots of other excellent distros besides Ubuntu and Debian, both for the desktop use and for servers. GNU/Linux is all about choices and freedom.
I think you're misreading the slant of the original poster's comment which seemed more anti-Ubuntu to me. Or at least of the attitude that Ubuntu's a harmful forking of Debian...the "Debian on the server, Ubuntu on the desktop" is a position taken by some Ubuntu defenders arguing that it's strictly designed to fill the Desktop niche and shouldn't be perceived as a "threat" by Debian.
Personally, I'm with you, I like choice and freedom.
Try the http site here?
http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/



