Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Mon 11th Jan 2010 15:57 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews A few weeks ago, we asked for the OSNews community to help with some questions we were going to ask Aaron Griffin from the Arch Linux team, and the response was glorious and somewhat phenomenal. We added those questions to our own and sent them on over, and then we were surprised by receiving not only Aaron Griffin's responses but answers from various individuals from the team.
Thread beginning with comment 403579
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
perfect for testing and for KDE
by evert on Mon 11th Jan 2010 18:23 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

On 2 computers, I have installed Arch with KDEmod as a secondary. Arch is one of the distros to use if you like KDE4. Their KDE packages are clean, stable, and up to date.

On both computers, my primary OS is Windows. I still like that best for desktop computing - its graphical layer is just better than xorg with less advanced drivers. I like Arch as a secondary desktop OS because it allows you to experiment with Linux, and it boots up very fast.

For servers, I recommend Ubuntu server. Easy to install and administer. Arch just needs too much care if you are depending on a server, although if you have enough time, an Arch server could be quite interesting.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


For servers, I recommend Ubuntu server.


I wouldn't unless you don't mind having your system borked from an update.

My advice is to use FreeBSD or Cent. I'd trust either team over Canonical anyday. I'm still not sure of what Canonical's 300 employees do most of the time. Foosball perhaps?

Reply Parent Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

For servers, I recommend Ubuntu server. Easy to install and administer. Arch just needs too much care if you are depending on a server, although if you have enough time, an Arch server could be quite interesting.

I've run an Arch Server for a few years now and find it needs very little care because once you set it up how you want it (which should be done at install time) all you need is the updates from the rolling release.


Furthermore, contrary to your reasoning, I've always ranked "easy to administrate" quite low on my list of requirements when choosing a server OS:

I'd sooner spend longer configuring a system, but have it streamlined for my specific requirements and understand the system from the ground up than have a server that took 10 mins to set up but leaves me scratching my head if/when things act abnormally.

Besides, as I've already stated above, a good administrator should only really need to spend the initial set up time and then use (custom) scripts to automate any lengthy or regular jobs to make future administration relatively easy (even on the trickier of systems).

Reply Parent Score: 2

darkcoder Member since:
2006-07-14

For servers, I recommend Ubuntu server. Easy to install and administer.


Do you mean Ubuntu server LTS? Because regular Ubuntu, like other fast release based distros (yes, I mean Fedora) have a very short lifespan. In a work environment you don't want an OS that you need to reinstall every year and a half because its support is over. In that escenario, the need to have the last version of everything is not important , but having securitiy fixes it is. So that either a long supported distro or a rolling one is a must.

So, for servers, are better suited:
Ubuntu LTS
Red Had Enterprise $$$
Cent OS
Debian
Gentoo (even better with hardened profile)
Arch (as a developer said, if you know what you are doing)

I personally used Gentoo hardened for over 6 years without having to reinstalled it. Can your Ubuntu do that?

Reply Parent Score: 1

evert Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I have used a Ubuntu server for some years, without reinstalling or package conflicts. And yes, always running the latest version of Ubunto. A release upgrade is not that hard.

Reply Parent Score: 2