back to Ubuntu 8.04

[Lonni J Friedman]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Lonni J Friedman <netllama at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ snipped a lot - re 6 month test cycle ]
>
>> That may be part of the problem, however Fedora also has a 6 month
>> release cycle and isn't similarly afflicted.
>
> Hmmm. Are you saying that Fedora survives your stress tests? Also, I
> certainly wouldn't think that Fedora meets the criteria for an
> enterprise release.

Yes, I'm saying that Fedora fares significantly better than Ubuntu.  I
never claimed that Fedora was enterprise ready.

> 2. It would be a really good idea if at least some of the principles
> of your proprietary stress test could be published so that others
> might confirm your claims.

I think you're confused.  This testing, which apparently stresses
Ubuntu alot, is part of my employer's software testing release
process.  I'm not about to publish internal confidential information,
and risk losing my job just to satisfy your curiosity.  I already
provided references to the latest round of Ubuntu-8.10 bugs that I've
run into which anyone can readily reproduce.

I don't really care whether anyone wants to believe what I've
experienced.  Someone wanted details on why I insisted that Ubuntu
didn't care about quality, and I provided more information.  I've got
far better uses for my time than to fabricate Ubuntu bugs.

>
> 3. None of the supposedly enterprise releases or even Debian stable
> suit my tastes, even for a critical server environment. RHEL is pretty
> reliable on the whole, but at some point during the use cycle you wind
> up needing some newer parts that the vendor is not willing to supply.
> I'm pretty sure that all the others (including Ubuntu server) are in a
> similar boat. In terms of reliability, we could be running RHEL4
> forever with no complaints. if only RH (in this case) would make
> available newer releases of some things ( PHP and Python, for
> example). I see absolutely no benefit to the requirement to replace
> everything in your environment just to run a later version of one or
> two packges. And, of course, by the time a package has been approved
> for the latest and greatest release, it's already missing some needed
> features. CentOS, OTH, does a fair job of bridging the gap by
> supporting newer piece parts on the same base release.

Sure, but CentOS doesn't really provide any official support.  Pushing
out upstream updates doesn't constitute support.

>
> Ah well, just a variant of "there is no perfect distro".

Agreed.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                                    netllama at gmail.com
LlamaLand                       https://netllama.linux-sxs.org