Server comments

[Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom)]

   I would be happy with the 'network iso'  (Debian) with the packages 
coming from kernel.org. Having thought about this a little more, I adore 
Ubuntu (Debian) and hate the install process and dont think much of FC4 and 
adore it's install process.

   Even if they simply ran aptitude near the end it would be better than it 
is (for server installs). I wish the debian team were faster than they are. 
:(  (I dont want to hear it. Their etch is fundamentally breezy and it 
stinks - I am certain they will fix it .......... at some point)

   Thanks for all the comments. (I felt compelled to comment, so I did. This 
isnt going to happen however :) ).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dunbar" <eric.dunbar at gmail.com>
To: "Ubuntu Help and User Discussions" <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>; "The 
Sounder" <sounder at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Server comments


On 2/17/06, Eric Dunbar <eric.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Jim Bodkikns (Dakotacom) <JimBodkins at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >    Interesting idea actually. I like many that have responded, would 
> > hate to
> > see the base server install go away. I dont understand why the approach 
> > used
> > by RHEL or FC4 wasnt used. It isnt perfect but will allow just about
> > anything to be installed at the time the system is 'built' rather than
> > later.
> >
> >    Wait, I know the answer. Ubuntu is a 'desktop' distro, and probably 
> > the
> > best. It is probably the case that people are finding ubuntu usefull 
> > beyond
> > the desktop. We are. (As a better debian.)
>
> It's a case of... "Ubuntu is a one CD distro".

Or maybe not ;-)...

From: <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerFaq>

The first difference is in the CD contents. I hope that the desktop
version doesn't need an explanation, while the "Server" CD instead of
having packages like X, Gnome or KDE has all those packages that can
be useful on a server: Apache2, Bind9 and so on. This is only for the
users' comfort, nothing more. In theory, using a Desktop CD with a
minimal installation and installing, for example, apache2 from the
network, one can obtain the exact same result that can be obtained by
inserting the Server CD and installing apache2 from the cd-rom. This
is going to change slightly in the future, for dapper.

> More options = more space needed = not available when CD is already full.
>
> Plus, more options = more complexity = not necessarily better =
> excludes potential users[1].
>
> [1] And, it might alienate (disenfranchise, even [2]) users without
> actually offering anything in return.
>
> [2] Hmm. Perhaps the language around making GNU/Linux accessible to
> more users ought to _explicitly_ involve acknowledging the notion of
> 'enfranchisement'? Yeah, I guess it's a little bit weird since the
> ability to own and operate a computer is an elite ability itself, but,
> given that software is usually more expensive than the computer
> hardware itself, having freely available, and USABLE software would
> still be considered within the realm of enfranchising (giving
> self-determination) people.
>
> Eric.
>

-- 
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users