Small debian based server distribution

[geoffrey mendelson]

On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Steve G. wrote:

> And why or how is Ubuntu server different from any other linux  
> server to make it that way?
>
> I use ubuntu on the desktop and am quite satisfied with it. I used  
> to use RedHat/Fedora and Suse/OpenSuse, until I ran into some  
> unresolvable cyclical package requirements a number of time (when  
> you want program A which makes you first get program B, which in  
> turn requires Program A - or a similar variation with A, B and C. It  
> was possible to bypass that by forcing installs, and by writing all  
> the packages on one line, and other such kludges, but every package  
> with the problem (the problem were with YAST and RPM) had to be  
> researched first. I got disgusted, tried ubuntu and stuck with it,  
> so far without similar problems.
>
> I decided to use their server 'product' because I felt comfortable  
> with the main distro, and again, have not had any problems to date -  
> have not been rooted, owned or anything. Not that it can't happen,  
> but I am sure it is the same with any other distro.
>
> If I am missing something, please advise - and suggest a better  
> server product with an argument why it is better. I am talking a  
> generic server - ssh, ftp, httpd, nothing unique at this point.

Because UBUNTU is not intended for people who want to customize their  
system beyond adding or subtracting whole packages. If you want a  
feature not compiled in, you can do it, but are no longer able to use  
their packages which means not using their update and dependency system.

If want to add something they don't include you can, but if it depends  
upon a library they do include, there is no way to stop it from being  
updated and your program breaking.

They also do not test very well, I've had to use older kernels when  
the latest new one would not boot.

They have an attitude that deadlines are more important than function,  
so one release (was it 9.04) would not boot on an ATOM based system,  
something they knew about long before the release, but forgot to test  
it on the final version and when they did and found it would not work,  
ignored it.

Their answer to many people complaining was basicly it sucks to be you.

They often don't update packages between releases, so the bugs in the  
last release's version of Asterisk for example, stick with you until  
the next release of UBUNTU no matter when they were fixed. Yes, you  
can install your own, but it breaks their whole system.

Another example is Netatalk. Since MacOS 10.5 came out, an option that  
UBUNTU refuses to include is needed for it to work.  Same if you use a  
Mac to maintain your system via a remote X session. It will work if  
you use KDE or FVWM or twm, but not Gnome. Sucks to be you if you want  
to use their fancy graphic tools to maintain your system.

There used to be a work around, but it stopped working about a year  
and a half ago.

A generic server will be fine as long as you can live with their  
restrictions. The moment you step out of the envelope, look out.

Geoff.

-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson,  N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must  
order dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are  
forbidden to eat it. :-)