Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 6th Mar 2011 12:45 UTC, submitted by Petur
Thread beginning with comment 464871
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Mar 2011 14:50
in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
He says it's most commonly used Linux distro.
He didn't say that most commonly Linux Server distro is Ubuntu.
He didn't say that most commonly Linux Server distro is Ubuntu.
Ahh sorry. The line I quoted said he was using Ubuntu Server - which isn't the same as Desktop Ubuntu.
Reading through it again, it's become quite clear that he's just using regular Ubuntu. Very poor choice of distro in my opinion (given the point behind cluster servers) but at least he's been detailed enough where people could translate the same experience to other Linuxes.
Is this true?
On the server? probably not.
I honestly thought that most Linux servers ran CentOS or OpenSuse
Boy, dont even get me started on too-cheap-to-pay-for-RHEL and OpenSUSE. CentOS is getting seriously long in the tooth and SUSe is just, eh, meh.
Ubuntu Server kicks their asses by not being bloated with a gazillion things in the default install and by being generally leaner. No fricken Yast, thank God.
RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 6th Mar 2011 22:50
in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Boy, dont even get me started on too-cheap-to-pay-for-RHEL and OpenSUSE. CentOS is getting seriously long in the tooth and SUSe is just, eh, meh.
Ubuntu Server kicks their asses by not being bloated with a gazillion things in the default install and by being generally leaner.
Nobody uses a default install on servers anyway. I mean who wants XWindows on a headless system, for example?
The nice thing about CentOS (and OpenSUSE IIRC) was how easy it was to just do a minimal server install. In fact I have a CentOS webserver running on 256MB RAM right now and that only took my a few mins to set up, yet it's been lean enough to manage 2 virtual hosts - albeit neither with heavy traffic.
No fricken Yast, thank God.
I hear people moan about Yast constantly but I can't say I ever had a problem with it. Granted it has it's short comings but nobody is forced into using it (you can configure the system the old fashioned way in vi / nano if you want) and and Yast actually quite good for some some jobs.
I know it's all horses for courses though (I'm running CentOS, ArchLinux and FreeBSD servers) so I was just polling to see what others use / thought
Edited 2011-03-06 22:54 UTC





Member since:
2007-03-26
Is this true? I honestly thought that most Linux servers ran CentOS or OpenSuse (of the "free" Linux variety)
Edited 2011-03-06 13:50 UTC