fedora 7

[John Chambers]

David Kramer kommented:
| Every objective person I've asked has said that Ubuntu is not ideal for
| a complex server.  I'm not knocking it as a desktop distro.  But we all
| have different needs.

Hmmm ... I keep relearning that I shouldn't even bother with "server"
distros.  No matter what, I always need to configure all the servers,
and I usually do this by using  a  browser  to  download  the  latest
version of each server, ignoring what came from the vendor..

Thus, I've installed apache on more machines  that  I  can  remember.
I've repeatedly tried the supplied apache, and given up after an hour
or so of trying to learn where they hid all the pieces.  Then I go to
apache.org, untar it, edit the config script, type a couple of "make"
commands, edit httpd.conf, fire it up, and it takes maybe  10  to  20
minutes to have a live web server.

Most other servers are similar.  With the "official" distro,  I  know
where  everything  gets  installed  and what files need attention.  I
don't have to spend time learning how yet another vendor decided they
knew a better way to organize it.

I keep getting tempted to install ubuntu (or kubuntu more likely).  I
think that maybe I'll apply the above lesson, and not bother with the
"server" version.  I'll just install the desktop, figure out  how  to
disable most of the flashy UI stuff after 10 minutes of it gets a bit
boring, and install the latest releases of whatever servers I want.

But I don't suppose I'd recommend this for my mother, either. ;-)


--
Key: 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.