[kwlug-disc] What's the best desktop distribution?
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Sun Feb 7 18:47:50 EST 2010
Khalid Baheyeldin wrote, On 02/07/2010 4:17 PM:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca
> <mailto:unsolicited at swiz.ca>> wrote:
> If I understand your points about frequency of Drupal updates / lack
> of security updates for older Drupal versions, is using LTS really
> viable? Given you're already in more frequent / update mode for
> Drupal anyways?
> Yes, one part is moving fast (Drupal), but at least the rest of the
> stack (LAMP) is not, and does not need to be upgraded often.
> So the net result is a win: I get security updates for everything,
> though the means of updating is different for the two (Linux via distro
> repository, Drupal via drupal.org <http://drupal.org>). I don't get the
> pain of upgrading too frequently or dealing with compatibility issues
> when upgrading.
> I can see your point is some (?) years as Drupal settles down.
> You've pointed out that Drupal is currently still in rapid
> evolution. In your experience / expectation, is LTS, today, reasonable?
> Ubuntu LTS is indeed viable. I never had something break on me on a
> server because of an apt upgrade. Shouldn't say "never", but at least I
> don't recall such
> an incident.
You took me the opposite way. What I meant was, if you're in the
middle of frequent updates anyways, does non-'LTS' really add any
significant effort? Do you gain / lose much?
> Drupal will not slow down in the foreseeable future, just because the
> pace of web technology is fast. Even if it does, core may stabilize a
> bit, but modules will always be in flux.
> There is nothing stopping a Drupal company from backporting patches to
> obsolete versions. This has been discussed several times in the
> community, but there were no takers.
> Or/and is Debian stable a more reasonable platform for production
> than Ubuntu LTS server (in these particular circumstances)? Either
> way, you're still updating Drupal more frequently / more often than
> just 'OS' releases?
> I have not managed a Debian server long enough to form an opinion,
> although I helped a few clients with specific aspects of it.
> From what I understand Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS are close enough, but
> I just happen to use the latter.
I guess what I'm wondering is what Ubuntu LTS gains you over Debian
stable. I take your points, recently, about Ubuntu vs. Debian. (In
fact, I just experienced it myself on the new laptop - I had to pull
Debian testing off in favour of Kubuntu 9.10 - Kubuntu just had more
working out of the box, like network. Although, unfortunately, not
> One factor is me using Ubuntu desktops,
I hear you, but I wonder how that relates / matters? Familiarity? (But
your servers are gui-less, so ...) Just warm fuzzy feeling comfort
level? (Not a negligible thing, by any means.)
> slow pace of updates (perhaps not so much recently) and the reputation that
> Ubuntu has a few things that are more up to date than Debian's.
Again, I hear you, but you're building servers. Presumably mostly
based on rock-solid LAMP. I guess what I'm really asking is, since the
desktop has more quickly moving hardware (e.g. wireless) than servers,
are there current frequent aspects where being more up to date was
important (given the service / hardware nature of servers), even for
servers (these days)?
More information about the kwlug-disc