[Dovecot] OT Re: crashes on 2.0.16

[Simon Brereton]

On Dec 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Noel Butler" <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 00:49 +0100, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
>
> > 2011/12/22 Jim Knuth <jk at jkart.de>:
> > > am 22.12.11 00:15 schrieb Christopher Stolzenberg
> > >
> > > <xchris89x at googlemail.com>:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> 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

I'm with Jim.  Debian has served me well for years.  This is just
distro-bias.  Sure, you need modicum more sense and hands on experience,
but that's not bad thing in a production environment..

It would be interesting to chart the number of threads caused by each
distro.  I don't know who would have the least, but I suspect gentoo and
centos would be out in front, with Ubuntu panting along behind..

Simon

>
> 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
>