On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 00:49 +0100, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
2011/12/22 Jim Knuth jk@jkart.de:
am 22.12.11 00:15 schrieb Christopher Stolzenberg
Indeed; very many of us use Debian stable. Which kernel did you install that is 2.0.16-friendly, and was this from Debian stable's updates system?
regards, Ron
Debian for production servers??? That sounds dangerous.
sorry, but that`s absolutely bulls*it. *lol* Where have you read then THIS?
My own experience!
Reasons against Debian:
- No LSB certification (Linux Standard Base)
- No hardware certification (IBM, Dell, HP ...)
- Incompatible with some Broadcom NICs
- Full of bugs
- Free Kernel (non-free firmware removed... lol)
- Obsolete kernel (incompatible with new hardware)
- Obsolete packages
- Only one year support for oldstable *lol*
- Long delay for security updates
-- Chris
Reasons for debian: They have largest number of packages! ... oh Wait! thats because they break up simple packages into 8-10 sub packages where as other distros use single or split in two .. yeah, scratch that... you're right, no pro's that I can think of ;)
Ahhh just before I hit send I remember one, debian, like windows, is an ideal distro on a server in a Colo that charges for remote hands (incl reboots), cause they have the highest fail rate.
Most stable OS's from colo are freebsd, slackware, RHEL, CentOS (ok same thing) and SuSE, and surprisingly, we once had a customer with an old win2K box back in mid 00's, that was very well behaved, and it was busy, they ran a concert/band/event ticketing site on it, truly amazed me that box.
Worse OS's would be netbsd, fedora, debian, ubuntu, mint, windows* .. but very very nice money earners for remote hands :P
