“With a message dated 14th December 2005 the Ubuntu server team was officially created. This group of programmers has the task of creating a server-specific version of Ubuntu Linux. This is particularly interesting, since up to now the Debian-based distro has been desktop-oriented. That’s why I decided to ask some questions to Fabio Massimo Di Nitto, the server team leader.”
I’ve been using Ubuntu server for a while now, running various services such as DNS, DHCP, Samba, Apache, MySQL, Subversion, etc, and it has been great.
I like that I don’t have to compile anything by hand anymore and that a typical install only needs about 500 MB of disk space. Also, since there are so many users, it is easy to Google for any problems I run in to.
I can replace Ubuntu with Debian in your comment and it would still be true.
Is there any real advantage of using ubuntu over sarge?
I have the same question. Ubuntu takes Debian and makes it ideally suited for the desktop, which is the reason why Ubuntu is my main desktop OS. For my servers, however, I use Debian, which for server use is fine as it is.
What would Ubuntu Server give me that I don’t get in Debian?
From the article, it seems that they plan to release a server version concurrently with each major Ubuntu release, but with 5 years of support instead of 3. 5 years is great, but releasing every 6 months, while great for the desktop, doesn’t add anything to the server. Ideally, I like to install a server and have it run for 3 years at least without worrying about an OS upgrade. The one advantage I can think of is that you have total version synchronization between the desktop and the server, which can be very useful for developers.
I’ve found that Ubuntu handles lvm and md devices a bit nicer than sarge. Plus, Ubuntu is much quicker at getting new features. I’ve been hanging out for NFSv4 for some time now, but haven’t had the motivation to go through the whole nine yards of patching and customizing that would be required with a stock Sarge install. Once I upgrade the server from Warty to Breezy, I can finally get rid of the last unencrypted stream on the network.
Also, at work, it’s easier to stick with the same distro on server and desktop. Ubuntu on the desktop just has that ‘polish’ that Debian lacks. Debian isn’t missing anything per se, it just requires a bit more fiddling to get some things working.
Indeed you could get a Debian install to do the exact same thing, but for me its the simplicity of Ubuntu that I like over Debian.
First, its only 1 CD. Last time I wanted to use Debian, there were something like 7 disc available and I had to search around just to figure out what discs I really needed, rather than just downloading on small iso.
Second, the base install is completely bare. I go through a lot of OS installs at work, home, and school and I just can’t stand sitting at an installer screen picking packages and cutting out stuff I don’t need or want.
Basically, Ubuntu offers me a streamlined Debian.
Indeed you could get a Debian install to do the exact same thing, but for me its the simplicity of Ubuntu that I like over Debian.
First, its only 1 CD. Last time I wanted to use Debian, there were something like 7 disc available and I had to search around just to figure out what discs I really needed, rather than just downloading on small iso.
Second, the base install is completely bare. I go through a lot of OS installs at work, home, and school and I just can’t stand sitting at an installer screen picking packages and cutting out stuff I don’t need or want.
Basically, Ubuntu offers me a streamlined Debian.
There’s not much that Ubuntu can do to improve on Debian. In Debian you install the base system from one very small “netinstall” CD. Then you start aptitude, go to “Tasks” -> “Servers” and choose the type of server you want to install. It cannot get much simpler or more streamlined than that.
Ubuntu makes a nice Debian-based desktop but GNU/Linux systems are mostly used for servers and Debian is currently the fastest growing GNU/Linux distro. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/12/05/strong_growth_for_debi… Debian also has good documentation resources for server use. http://www.debian-administration.org/
>Is there any real advantage of using ubuntu over sarge?
Next Ubuntu release will have 5 years of security updates…
Debian try to make release cycle shorter(i think it’s bad) and i doubt they will be able to give 5 years support…
5 years of security updates for the server and 3 years of security updates on the desktop. Those are also only for packages in the “main” repository and does not include the “universe” or “multiverse” repositories. Make sure you know what is and is not supported.
The author of the interview forgot to ‘sudo apt-get install aspell’.
I like the developer’s overall attitude. He doesn’t even begin to cause a flame war and outright states that you hosuld use whatever suits you best (whether that is features or jus tan intangible ‘feel’).
That is the type of attitude that will keep linux going strong…
one of the things I hope this will bring is a more forward looking approach to servers. On the Ubuntuforums site there are lots of people asking for the standard “canned” setups to be made easier. Really, does LAMP still need to be a hard thing to do…. I understand security and all, but shouldn’t it “just work” especially when it’s just on your own box? I’d hope they’d add Ubuntu themed web admin, and network management tools to the mix..
I look forward to seeing what they can do. And the forum site is really good for bringing Linux servers to the masses. I’d like to see newer technologies be pushed out faster becaused of the limited environment offered. There’s a lot of cool stuff that CAN be done with linux and OSS, but only a few people can make it all work. Hopefully this will change!
I’ve always wondered why Ubuntu decided to maintain its own packages for its servers. What’s the point of basing it on Debian if you’re not going to try and benefit from Debian’s expertise.
I figure a better bet would be to switch the next Ubuntu release from Debian Sid to Debian Testing (which is becoming more and more up-to-date). With this done, they could come up with a workable configuration scheme that would convert Debian to Ubuntu, and in a couple of years time, when Debian 4.0 is released, they can use that existing scheme to release Ubuntu Server, based off the Debian stable release. The Ubuntu desktop can then start off again with the next Debian Testing distribution.
The way they’re doing things now, they’re dedicating all their resources – needlessly – to package management, instead of something useful like a coherent GUI, decent configuration utilities, and all the other little things that are left standing between Linux and the hallowed “World Domination”. With a release every six months, and five years support, in five year’s time they’re going to have to release patches for the same bug in up to 9 different versions. Not pretty.
If it’s a time thing, I’m sure they could use their expertise to tweak the existing Debian stable distribution and release it as their server product. The issue, really, is that they don’t seem to have any coherent business or development strategy, it all seems to be off-the-cuff.
I run Debian / Ubuntu Servers here. Here are some stats from ouy servers pimping files to more than 700 users:
Debian: Core Samaba FileServer
Mephisto: 08:46:00 up 236 days, 18:10, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Ubuntu: Web App Sandbox:
getsmart: 09:10:54 up 289 days, 21:02, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00
Ubuntu: DNS Server
03:47:13 up 236 days, 18:22, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.06, 0.01
Nothing different regarding all the important stuff. Uptime, Load Levels etc. To further the point 2 out of 3 boxes are dual 300mhz with 256mb ram.
The point of this is Debian / Sarge on the server is all a matter of asthetics. In my scenario both are equal on the server end.
-nX
I think something that several of the comments have incorrect/missed is that (last I read) not all of the Ubuntu releases will have the 5 year lifetime. There will be select releases along the way which also have the extended lifetime. Of course, this article does nothing to clarify this 🙂
Again, this is based on information they put out a few months ago, but I’m fairly certain it still holds. I’d guess the extended support releases would be on the order of 2 years apart, though that’s only a guess.
This is a very good move for Ubuntu. It’ll ensure that Ubuntu will be taken seriously as a distro suitable for a Corporation to deploy on its servers (some feel that having a seperate server distribution shows this kind of commitment). However, having said all that…isn’t this new initiative somewhat comparable to nUbuntu?
http://www.nubuntu.org/
While we’re on the subject of Ubuntu on the Server, it would be nice to see some dedicated administation and configuration tools, that took the grunt work out of setting up LDAP and Kerberos and NFSv4/AFS, and had things like Apache, and the mail components already configured to plug into them.
This is possible, but so far no one seems to do anything like it outside of Microsofts Active Directory and Novells netware.