Slashdot Mirror
Sun Puts its Weight Behind Ubuntu Linux
fak3r writes "Sun today announced that they are putting their weight behind Ubuntu Linux. While Ubuntu has been many people's desktop Linux choice for a few years now, with its Debian heritage, you can see what kind of server it could be. Slap that on the new Sun 1Us with the new Niagra T1's CPU, the one that'll have four, six or eight cores each, and go to town."
So why wouldn't you just use Debian if you want a server linux distro? What will Ubuntu provide over Debian for a server?
While Ubuntu has been many people's desktop Linux choice for a few years now,
I find it interesting that a distro only first released slightly over 18 months ago [1] [2], could be "many people's desktop Linux choice for a few years now" (emphasis added).
So if Ubuntu is going to bed with Sun, does this leave Oracle out in the cold? Will they now be forced to look to Red Hat (which is clearly not interested) or Novell (which is probably not the best fit) instead? The Linux-go-round continues to spin.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
This is a good thing for Ubuntu and Open source.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Ubuntu on a server? So what? Ubuntu ...is nothing special as a server.
Well, there is a lot of buzz around Ubuntu, and Sun is trying to capitalize on it.
That aside, there's nothing wrong with running Ubuntu on a server. Do a "server" install to avoid all the bloat, and you have a stable Debian system with up to date software.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Perhaps we'll see a repository for Java .debs at last, eh?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
All I see is a lot of vague statements about how cool Ubuntu is and how Schwarz would like to do stuff with it. That's a long way from "putting weight behind Ubuntu". The headline of TFA is more accurate: Sun is flirting with Ubuntu. Or more accurately, their new CEO is — and I'm not convinced he'll be around long enough to push through that kind of strategy.
Do a "server" install to avoid all the bloat, and you have a stable Debian system with up to date software.
No, you don't. You have the Ubuntu repository without X. The Ubuntu releases aren't particular stable; if you look at the process, you'll see that there's nothing like the level of testing that goes on in Debian.
Sigh. yet more anti-RPM FUD. While dpkg is indeed a fine packaging system, it has little to make it superior to RPM. With dependency management handled by apt and yum, the two are broadly comparable these days. So let me ask you, what value do you see in dpkg, that isn't also present in RPM?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
As a big proponent of debian, the biggest problem corporate/companies have with debian support options is that is not coming directly from the distributor of the software. So maybe thats one reason for choosing Ubuntu is that they offer support directly.
Its also probably a lot easier for Sun to deal with a company when wanting changes/partnerships, rather than dealing with a fully community based effort. You can't just go to 1-2 guys in Debian and say do this and get it in by next week or else!
The Debian package repositories ;)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
That said, I agree that stability on the server is much more important than being on the cutting edge of technology, for most server uses. Besides, if you install Ubuntu to get a Debian system, well, why not just install Debian? :)
I guess it depends on the usage where the maximum cost/benefit point lies. If you want a rock-solid mail/webserver, Debian Stable is great. If you want to stream 3gp to your phone, Ubuntu is probably the best bet (with Flumotion and packages). Or if you want to use the latest version of PHP or whatever.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
That's actually true. It's not the dpkg itself, or even apt that makes debian great. It's all the contributors who care about the packages and do a good job making them. I have had great experience with debian for the most part. I have kept my desktop system up to date on "unstable" for about 6-7 years without ever reinstalling. I've switched hard drives, and done all kinds of other changes (including innumerable kernel upgrades), but it's never required much more than "apt-get dist-upgrade". I even messed up my root filesystem once and somehow managed to recover, and getting the packages properly in place was the least of my worries.
Maybe RPMs are better now, but back when I started using them (whatever came before RH 6.0, I think it was 5.2), that would have been about impossible. I don't even notice upgrading dpkg, but upgrading rpm with rpm was hell. I seem to recall some problems upgrading libc also.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Well, Sun is always trying to get on the desktop. (And wasting a lot of money in the process.) But I don't see how endorsing Ubuntu helps them get there. All the Linux apps that run on Ubunto also run on Solaris/x86.
I use Ubuntu as well as Debian, both on desktops and servers. Here is a couple of advantages Ubuntu has over Debian on servers:
As a Unix guru/developer I also regularly use a couple of other Linux and BSD distros (FreeBSD, Gentoo, OpenBSD, etc) because I like to experiment a lot and like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, but all in all I have realized that Ubuntu plainly rocks and there is a lot of reasons why it is becomming so popular. I think every IT engineer easily understands the advantages of Ubuntu. And somehow it totally makes sense that Sun, "a company built for engineers, by engineers" [1], is interested in Ubuntu :-)
I am a technological perfectionist and Mark Shuttleworth (the man behind Ubuntu) seems to
have created a distro the way I would have done it. It is well engineered and It Just Works (TM).
[1] http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan
I have tried several Linux Distros on the desktop and have yet to see why people would prefer Ubuntu to Suse. Mandriva, or Xandros.
When it comes to running a server I like Suse or Red Hat.
I don't like Ubuntu on the Desktop and cant see how it would be any better for a server. ( I don't care much for Solaris 10 either)
OK, I'm listening. What specifically are the aspects of Ubuntu that make it a "very poor server distribution?"
I sooooo wish Linux had that naming scheme.
/dev/sda which is a mirrored disk presented by the RAID controller. No worries if you have no SAN connection. But when your san disks are presented as /dev/sdx as well, and there is no guarantee that sda is the internal hard disk, having a controller / target naming scheme makes a lot more sense.
When you're automatically rebuilding a Linux box, and you only want to re-install the OS and not blow away the data on the SAN, this would be a godsend.
At the moment, we install Linux on