[ale] Debian 3.0 as a server platform?

[James Sumners]

Time for the fun again. Wheeeee!

On 6/2/05, Geoffrey <esoteric at 3times25.net> wrote:
> James Sumners wrote:
> > On 6/2/05, Geoffrey <esoteric at 3times25.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Robert L. Harris wrote:
> >>
> >>>I concur completely.  As I posted previously, we run 750+ servers on
> >>>Debian Stable because taht way we don't have to run regression tests on
> >>>every app every week to keep it "up to date" but we know it's stable and
> >>>secure, exactly what I want on my server.
> >>
> >>I can say the same for SuSE or Red Hat.  The main difference I see is
> >>how far behind the standard 'stable' Debian install is.  I suspect it's
> >>more to do with the fact that it's an all volunteer distro, but yet,
> >>Slackware is ahead of Debian with the packages it provides.
> >
> > Why do you need bleeding edge packages on your server? Do you not
> > prefer known working, secure, packages?
> 
> I didn't say they were bleeding edge packages.  That's what Fedora gives
> you.  Once it's stable, it then moves to Enterprise.  I don't know that
> SuSE has any equivalent, but Mandrake has it's cooker series.
> 
> So you're telling me that SuSE and Red Hat are putting out non-working
> and/or insecure packages in their production distros?  I don't think so.

Not quite. I am proposing that you can't be sure that the packages are
rock solid.

> > I have used all the distributions you mention (Slackware not so much
> > though). None of them are as easy to maintain as a Debian stable box.
> 
> That is purely your opinion.  I find SuSE and Mandrake are easily
> maintained.  No problems with dependencies because both have solutions
> for this.  Red Hat is also easily maintained, my main problem with Red
> Hat is there's no easy way to search for packages you want to install.
> Both SuSE and Mandrake offer such solutions.

I agree that YaST works fairly well. I don't agree that it is as
simple as the apt programs or Synaptic (if you must have a GUI).
Mandrake, however, was not listed in your previous email and I don't
recall ever hearing of a sane person using it for a server
environment; it installs more junk that Red Hat does. Which is a
problem with all three of those distributions that makes maintenance a
pain in my opinion -- they install too many unnecessary packages from
the start. Debian is about as bare bones as you can get with a
distribution.
 
> > In fact, I wrote a script to check for new updates daily and emails me
> > when they need to be applied.
> 
> Wow, I don't have to do that with SuSE, Mandrake OR Red Hat, they all
> provide that functionality already.

Okay, so? The only reason I wrote the script is so I could get a
reminder when they need to be installed. It is so _rare_ that it is
easy to forget it needs to be done. Your preferred distributions,
though, need updates all the friggin' time.

> > Applying those updates is as simple as
> > logging in via ssh and running on command -- `apt-get upgrade`. Since
> > I wrote the script about six months ago it has only emailed me twice;
> > I even have two backports set up, one for bittorrent [useless now] and
> > one for awstats [hardly ever used].
> 
> I can do much the same with any of the rpm based packages.

I haven't seen it. Care to elaborate?
 
> > I just don't buy the "Debian is too slow" line when the talk is about
> > a server environment.
> 
> I've not got a lot of experience with Debian, but the last time I looked
> at 'stable' the stock kernel was 2.2.  That is WAY behind everyone else.
>   At that time SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat and Slackware came with both 2.4
> and 2.6.  2.2 kernel?  Come on, that is old.

I still don't understand your hang-up on the 2.2 kernel. We, the list,
have told you several times that Woody _does_ ship with 2.4, you just
type "bf24" at the boot prompt instead of pressing enter to run with
the default installation. Plus, installing a custom kernel in Debian
is a helluva lot easier than with Red Hat or SuSE or whatever; you
just configure, compile, and point LILO in its general direction.

> Looking at what's to come with the release of the next stable (sarge)
> due June 6th and SuSE 9.3 which came out over a month ago, here's a
> comparison:
> 
> Debian                  Suse 9.3
> OpenOffice 1.1          OpenOffice 2.0
> kde 3.3                 kde 3.4
> gnome 2.8               gnome 2.10

OpenOffice 2.0 is _beta_. It is certainly not a stable package. KDE
3.4 would be in Sarge if the maintainers could have proven its
stablity like the Gnome folks did with 2.8. Gnome 2.10 came out too
late in the freeze cycle for it to be included in Sarge. Debian is in
the business of shipping solid packages that just work.


-- 
James Sumners
http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become
drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
CH:D 59