Re: Ubuntu Versions (was: Re: Let's say you never want to upgrade from Lenny...)
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> On 2011-04-05 12:24:39 Matt Harrison wrote:
>>On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
> 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*
> 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. ,= ,-_-. =.
> firstname.lastname@example.org ((_/)o o(\_))
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
> http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
All fine points....here you go: