On 2011-04-05 12:24:39 Matt Harrison wrote: >On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ><bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: >> On 2011-04-05 12:07:16 George Standish wrote: >>>On 05/04/11 01:04 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >>>> On 2011-04-05 11:51:13 George Standish wrote: >>>>>> If you need more support than Debian provides and<= 5 years, install >>>>>> an Ubuntu LTS. >>>>> >>>>> Just to clarify, Ubuntu LTS releases are 5 years for the server >>>>> version, 3 years for the desktop version. >>>> >>>> They use the same repositories. What exactly is the difference? >>> >>>I'm really not sure. >>> >> From >> <http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/Top_10_ServerQA_Eng_W >> P_AW_0.pdf>: >> 10. Can I install server packages on an Ubuntu Desktop >> installation and vice versa? >> Yes – Ubuntu’s flexibility makes it easy. The Ubuntu software repositories >> do not isolate packages to particular types of deployments. All the server >> software in the repositories is available to the desktop user, and all the >> desktop software can also be installed on the server. >> >> tl;dr: No difference. > >Are we seriously going to argue about which version of Ubuntu is >supported for how long? I think it is reasonable to discuss, if a little OT. >Who cares? Someone that doesn't necessarily want to upgrade on Debian's schedule. With Ubuntu, you can get 5 years, as opposed to Debian's ~3 years. With SLE* you can get 10 years. I'm not sure about RHEL, but I think it is roughly a SLE* timeframe. There are a number of organizations that would prefer to put hardware out in the field with a certain image and only apply security and important bug fixes for the life of the hardware. If the hardware refresh cycle is 3 years, you can always install the latest Ubuntu LTS at deployment time and be good for 3 years; that's not true of Debian (e.g. deployments in fall 2010). If the hardware refresh cycle is 5 years, you can always install the latest SLES + SP and be good for 5 years; that's not true of Ubuntu (e.g. deployments that don't fall more or less exactly on an LTS release date). I prefer Debian, but I haven't had to manage 100s or 1000s of installations where my main IT staff only has remote access or tried to completely script a change from oldstable -> stable. I'm sure it's possible, but it probably requires more work than just updating the systems within the same release. I'm also not that interested is chipping on an effort to maintain Debian oldstable any longer than it is supported now. For my purposes, the 1 year time frame given to execute an oldstable -> stable transition has always been more than enough. I should also note that Debian's support is (usually) for every package in main. This is a much larger selection of software that is in Ubuntu's main+restricted or within the SLE* support matrix. So, there are definitely cases where Debian's support is best-in-class. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.