http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
james
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
Hi,
2009/4/8 Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk:
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
Hah! I'm wondering if I should add "Ubuntu Server" to my list of oxymorons.
Joking aside, what is Ubuntu Server all about anyway? Surely it's just Ubuntu without a GUI, and at that rate, won't it just be better/easier/cooler/nicer/smarter/$adjective to just run Debian?
Srdjan
On 08 Apr 11:54, Srdjan Todorovic wrote:
Hi,
2009/4/8 Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk:
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
Hah! I'm wondering if I should add "Ubuntu Server" to my list of oxymorons.
Joking aside, what is Ubuntu Server all about anyway? Surely it's just Ubuntu without a GUI, and at that rate, won't it just be better/easier/cooler/nicer/smarter/$adjective to just run Debian?
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition http://www.ubuntulinux.org/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition/benefits/life...
(Note: not advocating or discouraging, I am a Debian user, and I will stick to being a debian user. The "advantage" of Ubuntu is newer software on a predictable timescale... either 6 monthly or 2 yearly, depending on the flavour you choose).
Ho hum.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:54:53AM +0100, Srdjan Todorovic wrote:
Hi,
2009/4/8 Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk:
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
Hah! I'm wondering if I should add "Ubuntu Server" to my list of oxymorons.
Joking aside, what is Ubuntu Server all about anyway? Surely it's just Ubuntu without a GUI, and at that rate, won't it just be better/easier/cooler/nicer/smarter/$adjective to just run Debian?
If you're running Ubuntu on other systems then having it on servers too makes for less difference.
Chris G wrote:
If you're running Ubuntu on other systems then having it on servers too makes for less difference
That's my rationale, and is why I run US on several servers now, both inside the office and for hosting purposes outside the office.
Although I have Ubuntu on my main desktop, I still spend a fair bit of time at the commandline, and having the same tools (and often the same versions) on the servers just makes life easier; I don't see any compelling reason *not* to use Ubuntu Server.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:06:12PM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
Chris G wrote:
If you're running Ubuntu on other systems then having it on servers too makes for less difference
That's my rationale, and is why I run US on several servers now, both inside the office and for hosting purposes outside the office.
Although I have Ubuntu on my main desktop, I still spend a fair bit of time at the commandline, and having the same tools (and often the same versions) on the servers just makes life easier; I don't see any compelling reason *not* to use Ubuntu Server.
For example (to continue) rdiff-backup is most definitely happiest with the same version at both 'ends'.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:13:49AM +0100, James Freer wrote:
http://blog.canonical.com/?p=110
Thought some may be interested in this report. Seems ubuntu is doing very well.
How many use it in this group?
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
There's only grass behind the garage, even in front it's just gravel, no tarmac for at least half a mile.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:30:33 +0100 Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk allegedly wrote:
On 08 Apr 09:52, Chris G wrote:
I use it on my garage backup system.
I didn't know that Ubuntu server came in a tarmac flavour (I'm assuming that the driveway/road is the backup to the garage)
Hmmmm "tarmac" - at least it probably won't be brown then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
James Freer -
Mark Rogers -
mick -
Srdjan Todorovic