Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've always been surprised that people bother installing Ubuntu on anything other than a personal laptop or desktop computer. Genuine question: what does Ubuntu offer as a server OS that isn't available in plain Debian?


As a power user, I like updated packages on desktops without the hassle of running testing, and a debian-like system for servers with a predictable release date and packages newer than 1996 for servers.

I love Debian but Ubuntu really did wonders for Linux adoption. This said, wherever squeeze is modern enough, I will use it instead.


I'd rather have debian stable. At least the packages actually work. Ubuntu is so damn unreliable (even LTS).


>unreliable (alt)

I would have disagreed with you until a few weeks ago. The past few updates have been requiring us to restart our servers. You restart it and a day later there is another update that requires another restart. Putting off updates on production servers is no longer a choice but having them now is not the best thing either.


I guess these are kernel security patches. You know why there are no patches for Debian stables? Because, no one bothers anymore to find stuff in 2.6


Considering a big chunk of 3.x is the same as 2.6... hmm.


Are blackhats finding stuff? If not, sounds good.


To be honest this is the least of our problems. We can reboot parts of our cluster without affecting overall capacity much. You just chuck the machines out of the load balancer pool and reboot them.

The issue is versions being pinned on LTS packages to broken versions. This includes svn, MySQL and a notable gcc problem which is a PITA.


The five year Long Term Support edition.


Ubuntu has lots of releases, so you don't need to sit on a broken piece of technology for ages. Oh and there is no gnome-shell in Debian stable.

Imho using an Ubuntu release is gradually easier than following Debian testing.

And Ubuntu is security hardened. Take a look at this list, Apparmor, stack protection, (more) secure sysctl settings:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features


3. Some newer packages. 2. PPAs. 1. It's actually supported by hosting companies.

We use 10.04 (and soon to be some 12.04) at work. The server edition is pretty much a version of Debian. As a sysadmin, I like it a whole lot.

Canonical indulge in mind-boggling WTFery on the desktop - but on the server underpinnings, they actually contribute a lot of paid developer effort directly to Debian to keep things going.

Reporting bugs that were caused by Canonical is pretty much futile, though. With Ubuntu Server you get to keep both pieces just as you do with Debian, it's just they're pretty okay pieces.


FWIW I have seen a lot more Debian support from hosting companies than Ubuntu support. Either way it's overwhelmingly RedHat.

Honestly though, problems surrounding "newer packages" is the reason #1 I avoid Ubuntu. I think the problem I had might have been LTS-specific, but I expected it to break less with changes, not more.


cloud-init for programmatically configuring new instances https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CloudInit


Puppet/dd?


Landscape




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: