[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Linux OS

Daniel Sheppard

2/7/2007 1:11:00 AM


> > Gentoo is not a desktop OS
>
> Depends on your definition of "desktop OS". Everything is relative, I
> mean there are .net programmers who think windoze is a good server OS,
> and it just might be from their perspective. Gross generalizations
> like the one you made above are good for nothing but flame wars.

I meant it as a counter to the dismissal of gentoo as a valid choice for
a server OS. This thread was a discussion about which linux OS should be
selected for a server environment, and an earlier poster said 'Ubuntu is
a desktop OS, as is Gentoo', I was pointing out that that was not the
case at all.

The primary purpose of ubuntu is to be a desktop linux os (it is geared
towards desktop use). The primary purpose of gentoo is to provide an
optimised build using a special package management system (it's not just
geared towards desktop use).

I was dismissing a generalisation not making one.

Dan.
3 Answers

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

2/7/2007 5:32:00 AM

0

Daniel Sheppard wrote:
>
>
>>> Gentoo is not a desktop OS
>>>
>> Depends on your definition of "desktop OS". Everything is relative, I
>> mean there are .net programmers who think windoze is a good server OS,
>> and it just might be from their perspective. Gross generalizations
>> like the one you made above are good for nothing but flame wars.
>>
>
> I meant it as a counter to the dismissal of gentoo as a valid choice for
> a server OS. This thread was a discussion about which linux OS should be
> selected for a server environment, and an earlier poster said 'Ubuntu is
> a desktop OS, as is Gentoo', I was pointing out that that was not the
> case at all.
>
> The primary purpose of ubuntu is to be a desktop linux os (it is geared
> towards desktop use). The primary purpose of gentoo is to provide an
> optimised build using a special package management system (it's not just
> geared towards desktop use).
>
> I was dismissing a generalisation not making one.
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
I was the one who dismissed Gentoo as a server OS. Let me point out that
I have three workstations running Gentoo and it is my distro of choice
for workstations. If you want, I'll hunt down the blog post on why
Gentoo is not practical as a server OS except under some extremely rare
circumstances. The main point is that it just takes too much wall clock
time to do routine security and stability updates relative to Debian and
Fedora/Red Hat/CentOS.

I'm a big Gentoo fan. However, in a business setting where time is money
and cost minimization is king, Gentoo is probably the wrong choice. As
an additional negative, Gentoo system administration, while easy and
well-thought out and designed, is just plain *different* from what most
people know -- Red Hat. I've been using Gentoo for a number of years --
at least three. I can fix anything on my boxes and I can even break them
and fix them again. But I can't bail out a stupid Red Hat user without
reading the manual. :)

So I will stick with my recommendation: the vast majority of
non-professional servers are better off with Fedora than any other Linux
distro.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blo...

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

Brian Candler

2/7/2007 9:20:00 AM

0

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:32:11PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> So I will stick with my recommendation: the vast majority of
> non-professional servers are better off with Fedora than any other Linux
> distro.

Just remember that if you are running Fedora, you are acting as an unpaid
alpha-tester for a commercial product (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). Also,
there is little support for older releases, so you will find yourself doing
full version upgrades quite often.

If you like the idea of running "stable" Red Hat code, or you work in an
organisation that also uses RHEL for servers, consider CentOS:
http://www.c...
You'll find yourself stuck with a 2.6.9 kernel though.

Otherwise, it's hard not to recommend Ubuntu. Ubuntu 6.06 has long-term
support (until 2009 for desktop, and 2011 for server), and it's a breeze to
install and keep up to date. Sure, the default install is rather bloated in
terms of the amount of stuff it installs, but disks are cheap these days.

The ruby installation is broken into a zillion sub-packages, but 'apt-cache
search ruby' will generally find the bit you're looking for.

Just my 2c.

Brian.

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

2/8/2007 2:44:00 AM

0

Brian Candler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:32:11PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
>> So I will stick with my recommendation: the vast majority of
>> non-professional servers are better off with Fedora than any other Linux
>> distro.
>>
>
> Just remember that if you are running Fedora, you are acting as an unpaid
> alpha-tester for a commercial product (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). Also,
> there is little support for older releases, so you will find yourself doing
> full version upgrades quite often.
>
Ah, but aren't we all unpaid alpha and beta testers in the open source
world? :)
> If you like the idea of running "stable" Red Hat code, or you work in an
> organisation that also uses RHEL for servers, consider CentOS:
> http://www.c...
> You'll find yourself stuck with a 2.6.9 kernel though.
>
Yeah ... CentOS and the other RHEL rebuilds are a really good deal. I
don't know why so many businesses choose to run Fedora servers rather
than an RHEL rebuild, but they do. I guess they know what they're doing.


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blo...

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.