Hash: SHA1
Steven,
How do you personally handle needing to install software with custom
command line options in something like Redhat?
Steven Black wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:20:22AM -0400, Joe Auty wrote:
>> Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why? What are
>> your general recommendations these days?
>
> Personally, I think source-based distributions are a step backward. I
> administer an old Solaris 8 box which at this point is mostly source-based.
> I build the source. I install the source. I worry about upgrades to the
> source. I use GNU Stow for package management.
>
> I do wonder how the source-based distributions manage security upgrades.
> When they're focused on end-users and desktop machines they don't need to
> worry as much about security upgrades. Let the end-users muck it out. Let
> them subscribe to all the important lists, and install the patches by hand.
> This doesn't work so well in a production environment, though.
>
> The big benefit of binary distros for servers is that package maintenance
> gets a lot easier. Who cares about base system install time? It is
> meaningless as it happens once. The problem comes when you need to
> perform security upgrades, and when your users want you to add software,
> and they want it fast. Worse still, when there's been a single major
> security hole fixed that will require relinking almost all your system
> with an updated library.
>
> How easy would it be if you need to patch zlib or worse yet, libc? I know
> how easy it is to upgrade core libraries on Debian-based systems. I know
> how much impact it has on my users and how much down-time to expect. More
> than that, as it is an automated process there's little to no chance that
> I'll muck it up.
>
> The ease of upgrading is the big reason I have favored Debian-derived
> systems. I'm currently administering Debian 3.1 systems. However at the
> next major system upgrade those will be moving to Ubuntu LTS.
>
> The reason we're migrating to Ubuntu LTS is that there's a clear established
> release schedule. We'll be able to plan software upgrades much the same way
> that we are able to plan hardware upgrades. As we'll be able to plan them
> in-sync, we should have better matched configuration. As we have a clear
> schedule, we should be able to plan our internal development to work around
> it.
>
> Cheers,
> Steven Black
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
- --
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG7q9oCgdfeCwsL5ERAu1JAJ9RjS0HWmPPQO6c0nLGRBg8iagwwwCcCsrE
/vI+TfCaf9dSbB9av5nUuxA=
=rBxk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment