Why should I use Ubuntu?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muted (0)
T

traz

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,021
Subscriptor
  • #1
    Long time Debian user and administrator (started out with Slackware but that's another story).

    I almost exclusively use the command line because I mostly deal with servers (mysql, apache, postfix)... so don't factor in workstation benefits. I'm about to install a few new servers and was considering Ubuntu Server. So... Why should I use Ubuntu Server instead of Debian? Open question.
     
    B

    Bluebottle

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,256
  • #5
    Don't.

    I used Ubuntu LTS versions on one of my boxes from 2005-2010. I was very happy with Dapper (6.06). The long maintenance cycle was appealing. Since 8.04 LTS, things gradually got worse and worse. The server kernels are on the same bug-fix cycle as the desktop kernels and I got severely bitten by some of the poorly-checked regressions that came in as bug-fixes for desktop use-cases. Network drivers suddenly not working anymore because of a patch for a Toshiba notebook, etc etc.

    I also got extremely pissed off by the you-must-be-local approach for the Upstart init system, which (for example) will halt the entire boot process indefinitely if any FSs listed in /etc/fstab are not present. As a user of dm-crypt, I keep my mount-points for dm-crypt devices in /etc/fstab (for ease of mount/unmount with my various options), but I run my
    Code: 
    cryptsetup luksOpen ...
    instances via script after booting. So, of course the device nodes don't exist in /dev/mapper when booting!

    In my experience, Ubuntu just has a different focus to Debian: Debian's focus is more compatible with servers, and especially dark-room/headless admin. Stick with Debian.
     
    A

    ads2

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,254
    Subscriptor++
  • #7
    I think the only good reason is if you also support several ubuntu desktops, in which case it's nice to keep versions roughly synchronised between the clients and servers.

    Actually, I install the ubuntu server iso all the time --- as a basis for installing desktop machines. Since I make so many changes to the default package list, it's easier to start with a command-line system and then install the desktop features I want.
     
    E

    Eric_Estrada

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    701
  • #8
    ads2":fom054z9 said:
    I think the only good reason is if you also support several ubuntu desktops, in which case it's nice to keep versions roughly synchronised between the clients and servers.

    Actually, I install the ubuntu server iso all the time --- as a basis for installing desktop machines. Since I make so many changes to the default package list, it's easier to start with a command-line system and then install the desktop features I want.
    Click to expand...
    Why not use the alternate install of ubuntu for that?
     
    T

    tecknurd

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    79
  • #9
    Using Ubuntu is alright, but some versions have problems. Ubuntu is not reliable for each machine, so you have to hunt for the problem. I suggest stay with the long term support versions of Ubuntu to have fewest problems. Ubuntu is not a rolling release distribution.

    I am not sure about using Ubuntu for servers. Ubuntu is really meant for desktops and notebooks, so for servers there might be some reliability and stability issues.

    If you have been using Debian for servers and it is working for you, use that. You could try Linux Mint Debian Edition. Linux Mint Debian Edition is a rolling release distribution. Linux Mint Debian Edition does install GUI, so you will have to remove it for server use.

    I recommend try out the distributions and see it works for your projects.

    I moved from Gentoo to Linux Mint to find a pre-compiled distribution that I am OK using as my desktop. I still prefer Gentoo because I feel it is better than Debian.
     
    A

    ads2

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,254
    Subscriptor++
  • #10
    Eric_Estrada":pbplooqv said:
    Why not use the alternate install of ubuntu for that?
    Click to expand...

    The alternate ISO installs the same packages as the desktop ISO, it just does the configuration in low-graphics mode (and allows a bit more mucking with drivers). My goal is to not *install* any desktop at first. Maybe it's a carryover from my gentoo days, but I like to make sure the underlying system works before installing my preferred desktop apps.
     
    Wheels Of Confusion

    Wheels Of Confusion

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    76,060
    Subscriptor
  • #11
    There's a 12-18MB minimal .iso for doing the Ubuntu equivalent of a Debian business card install, i.e. it gets the ncurses installer going and fetches everything else from the internet. By default it doesn't offer any GUI, so you can build up from the bare minimum of a net-aware Ubuntu Linux CLI environment. Unlike the Server version it isn't installing kernels and packages optimized for server duty.
    Used to be my preferred method of playing with different desktop environments until it mysteriously stopped working in Virtualbox.
     
    1

    13th seer

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    640
  • #15
    Not sure why you want to be convinced. Are you unhappy with Debian in some way?

    If you like Debian, but like the option of recent packages and a modern desktop, try out Linux Mint Debian Edition. It has a rolling release and is based on Debian Testing. Functional Gnome or Xfce desktop with a lot of polish.

    But if you prefer the command line, I see absolutely no reason to use Ubuntu (or Mint). If you need newer packages why not use a less stable Debian release?
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply