"In the short time that I've spent using Ubuntu 5.10, I've really come to like it. The installation was painless, all my hardware was detected and configured correctly, package management was easy, and the clean-cut GNOME desktop is terrific." In addition, here's a guide on setting up Ubuntu as a server.
Post a Comment
Member since:
---
A version of Ubuntu Server was covered earlier on OSNews:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=12326
I setup a server the other day and all went painlessly (as long as you want Apache2). Seems to be a bit more troublesome if you want Apache1.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
> I find both desktops very useful
I didn't made that experience. We are a mid size company, our customers are important to us and we need to deal with them every day and need to keep track of all our steps doing good project planning, keeping track of development and so on.
We have to deal with use cases, project management and so on and the tools existing for GNOME have always been in a poor shape compared to the counterparts found for KDE.
But then I am speaking out my very personal opinion here. If someone believes he can do professional Use Case diagrams using DIA or keep professional track of their projects using stuff like Planner then seriously no one can help them. Maybe they should seek out for a different job. Even Evolution which should be a top corporate trigger don't get the go for us since it's permanently crashing.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-08-22
Member since:---
"I say you couldn't be more wrong."
How can I be wrong since Ubuntu and Kubuntu are set up on the same ground system with only difference that the one uses GNOME and the other KDE ? So what hardware technically works with the one has to work the same way with the other. Turning an Ubuntu distro into Kubuntu and vice versa is just one command line entry.
Member since:
---
Could someone point me to some info on how to setup adsl in 5.10 using an USB Alcatel adsl modem? It's _not_ a SpeedTouch (that's the one model I found info on). According to the USB info the model's a Dynamite (weird). Installed Breezy on a friend's system, but without net...
Member since:2005-10-18
Try this: http://demo.librehwdb.tuxfamily.org/modems//modems_tab.php?lang=en&...
I guess you'll have to compile it from source.
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-08-29
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-10-02
It's not a bad idea.
There is nothing wrong in having an all round computer, working as a workstation as well as a server. It's not as good as a true server, but it does work quite fine.
And whether you're using Ubuntu or Kubuntu or whatever doesn't really matter. Personally I stick to LFS and Win2K3 Server, as an all-round workstation-server 
Member since:2005-07-06
Why do you say that? I had a Gentoo box running as server for years but now I switched to Ubuntu. Ubuntu-server has the same "JustWorks(TM)" feel as the desktop, it's great.
I'm sure most of that comes from Debian but who cares. It works wonders.
Now in all fairness, the reason I did this with Ubuntu is becase I migrated my services to my workstation. Which happened to have Ubuntu installed.
Member since:---
I'm not sure I understand how this is a bad idea?
Ubuntu Server (different release than Ubuntu desktop) is a great server OS with an extremely small install size of only 400Mb. Sure you might be better off with Debian for some tasks, but Ubuntu has filtered out all the crud I don't need or want from Debian and they have 18 months of support due to a very, very large development community. I'm using Ubuntu as a Subversion server, Web server, and File server and I couldn't be happier with it.
So please, could someone actually show how using Ubuntu server is a bad idea (elietests need not reply)
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:---
Well, the only incident I really remember any details about would be the last one, which caused me to switch to slackware. Basically, it managed to completely b0rk my system when dist-upgrading last week. I believe it stopped about half way through or so, and starting it again made things even worse. Now I couldn't even boot, because doing so would start X, which would crash and stall the computer, so then I had to boot up the live cd and try and fix things, only to find out that I couldn't even mount my ubuntu partition!
I think apt broke X a few times back, but that was so long ago I can't even remember it anymore. It might've been something else, but who knows.
-bytecoder
Member since:2005-07-06
If you try again. It's possible that you ran into the same problem that I did (nvidia + WUXGA screen on DVI).
Check this out:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=73032
but yes, dist-upgrade from hoary to breezy didn't actually work wonders for me either.
Member since:---
Member since:---
Member since:
---
I think people (trolls, rather) like you just enjoy bashing Ubuntu because of it's success.
Slackware, RedHat, SUSE are all dead. apt-get is king of package management, etc. Ubuntu is one of the greatest operating systems of our time.
The only thing that I can recommend over Ubuntu is OSX.
Member since:---
I think people (trolls, rather) like you just enjoy bashing Ubuntu because of it's success.
Geez. If you're going to go all crazy because people are claiming that ubuntu isn't really that great, you should probably see a psychiatrist. Honestly, if you don't like it, don't read it.
Slackware, RedHat, SUSE are all dead. apt-get is king of package management, etc. Ubuntu is one of the greatest operating systems of our time.
What proof do you have to back those statements up? If you have none, you might as well just leave right now.
-bytecoder
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-09
I prefer Ubuntu over RedHat/Fedora too, but let's not exaggerate. Each distribution has its strength.
* Slackware attracts people who value the KISS philosophy and transparency. The fact that it doesn't have all the bells and whistles and automatic features is a pro, not a con for Slackware supporters.
* RedHat/Fedora has far better SELinux, Xen, and GCJ support than Ubuntu. Fedora seems to be the proving ground for these technologies. If SELinux, Xen, and GCJ are important to you, or RedHat support is important to you, RedHat/Fedora is your best bet for a distribution.
I have little SUSE experience, but I'm sure there are reasons for using it too.
Each distribution has its strengths. If it doesn't, it'll just die off.
Personally, I think that in the long term (10 years), we'll still have 300 distributions, but they will all share the same source and binary repositories. The benefits of this code sharing and shared security are just too great. The benefits of going it alone aren't that great once companies and people realize that most distributions contain basically the same stuff. What the 300 distributions will do (whether they be RedHat/SUSE/Mandriva/etc or noncommercial like Debian/Ubuntu/Gentoo/Slackware/etc) will be provide different subsets of the packages or provide different configurations or provide different emphasis on source versus binary or provide packages that are not part of the common repository (e.g. proprietary software or controversial software).
Member since:---
>>>If SELinux, Xen, and GCJ are important to you, or RedHat support is important to you, RedHat/Fedora is your best bet for a distribution.
Not exactly true anymore.
For servers, why would anyone choose Fedora when RHEL (if you have money) or a free version of RHEL (CentOS) is available?
CentOS 4.2 is basically RedHat Enterprise Linux 4 with the RedHat trademarks removed and the latest updates applied.
Member since:---
You forgot that Fedora is now the base of future RHEL (starting for the 4th version) therefore some of the best Fedora features are transfered to RHEL and vice versa.
For servers, why would anyone choose Fedora when RHEL (if you have money) or a free version of RHEL (CentOS) is available?
you better ask both Wikipedia and Sourceforge about that one because they use Fedora as server.
I have seen myself small businesses using Fedora as server because they are attracted to new technologies.
Member since:
---
Because you could be using OpenBSD? Kidding aside, almost any distro can be used as a server; it wouldn't be hard to strip down a normal ubuntu install into a full-blown server, for example.
I find it pretty tasteless to mention OpenBSD and Ubuntu much less making a comparison.
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:
---
For servers that require security:
1. Don't use BIND. Use an alternative with a proven security track-record such as djbdns. Beware that binaries produced by modified djbdns cannot be redistributed, only the unmodified source code can be freely distributed (so any 3rd-party patches are usually patch files that need to be applied and compiled--this is the same idiotic license as qmail, which has an unbeatable security track-record). You can avoid these hassles and use any of a dozen totally free DNS service providers like zoneedit. Just google for "free dns" and do your homework before choosing one.
2. Install and run bastille-linux which is available as a package for most distros. It combines a series of multiple choice questions, perfect level of detail about each choice & consequences, and then secures your OS based on your choices. Doing 'apt-get install bastille' and just going with the default choices takes less than a minute--but I recommend reading each screen since it is a good security tutorial. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
3. For Apache2 servers, install mod_security. It doesn't make any sense not to use this fantastic free security defense. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
4. If your website is attacked by competitors or people who dislike your content, then install mod_evasive too (it offers good protection against small denial-of-service attacks and is easy to configure).
5. Proftpd is a good ftp server. But if you are paranoid about security, then choose vsftpd which is well-respected and known for solid security.
6. Postfix is a good compromise between convenience and security. Qmail has the best security but the idiotic license requires you to apply patches and compile the source code instead of using prepackaged binaries. Exim is the most convenient for Debian and Debian-based distros but it falls in 3rd place when it comes to security track-record, behind qmail (1st) and postfix (2nd). If you decide to try qmail and don't mind the horrible license that requires you to compile, then go with netqmail 1.05 or later which contains several patches to the original qmail--and consider using vpopmail-bin package which allows virtual email domains. These 3 email solutions are far better than sendmail which has a horrible security history like bind.
7. Sshd tips: Don't run sshd on the default port. Don't allow root user to login. Create a new group and only allow users belonging to that group to login via ssh. There's more you can do but doing these minimal steps are generally sufficient.
8. Consider using portsentry to temporarily blacklist ip addresses that try to connect to commonly exploited ports such as telnet.
9. Use logcheck which will automatically alert you via email of any suspicious activity detected in the log files.
Member since:---
Now, THAT are what I consider great advices. I´ve worked on a mid-sized ISP and we used to follow most of these recommendations (BIND being the only exception, but we managed to keep it working in a secure fashion, e.g. chrooted it! :-)). And regarding Apache, I still prefer version 1.3.x.
And you´re right: Qmail is a PITA to maintain, even though it is the best MTA around IMHO.
Cheers,
DeadFish Man
Member since:
---
It would be nice if the founder of Ubuntu Linux would consider supporting KDE even more beyond Kubuntu. It looks like he was very impressed by KDE's integration, polish and functionality.
http://dot.kde.org/1120585462/
