[TriLUG] Ubuntu vs Fedora (for a server)

Roy Vestal rvestal at trilug.org
Mon Jan 26 13:34:12 EST 2009


Eh, a slight disagreement with you here. I prefer the as "untainted as  
possible" approach I've seen in the RHEL, CentOS, Fedora world to  
package configurations vs what I've seen in the Debian world.

Guess it's just what I prefer.

However, if I'm asked "Do I install Windows Server or Ubuntu Server",  
I am at that point Ubuntu's biggest fan!  :D

On Jan 23, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Alan Porter wrote:

>
> So far, most of the comments have been about GUI vs shell, and
> rpm/yum vs dpkg/apt.  However, there is another very important
> point that pushes me to the Debian/Ubuntu distro's.
>
> I have seen some packages that require a lot of installation
> tweaking on Fedora, where on Debian/Ubuntu they "just work".
> For example, BackupPC works on both distros.  But under Fedora,
> you have to do a lot of tweaking of apache config files to get
> security and permissions and perl/cgi set up properly.  On
> Debian or Ubuntu, you just install it and it's ready to go.
>
> The Debian package managers do a LOT of work to make sure
> that the default configurations provide a certain level of
> out-of-the-box usability.  They change startup scripts,
> move config files, and create default setups.  In my (very
> limited) experience with Fedora, it's not quite so turn-key.
>
> That said, I'd still echo the earlier line: go with what you
> know.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> -- 
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>




More information about the TriLUG mailing list