[sf-lug] Linux Server Preferences

Michael Paric mparic at compbizsolutions.com
Thu Nov 5 20:01:23 PST 2009

On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Michael Paric (mparic at compbizsolutions.com):
>>> So, my understanding is:  There's no automated mechanism for  
>>> smoothly
>>> moving Ubuntu Server from the current stable branch to further ones,
>>> right?  I have to:
>>> 1.  Find out there's been a new release.
>>> 2.  Get its name (karmic, lucid...).
>>> 3.  Edit /etc/apt/sources.list
>>> 4.  Use apt-get (or aptitude) to do a semi-manual upgrade, and hope
>>>   for the best.  (This isn't an X11 system, so "Upgrade Manager",
>>>   etc., is not in the picture.)
>>> Am I missing something?
>>> -- 
>>> Rick Moen                    "Names of fictional places are
>>> capitalized:
>>> rick at linuxmafia.com          Narnia, Oz, San Francisco, etc."
>>>                                                    --  
>>> FakeAPStylebook
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sf-lug mailing list
>>> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
>>> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>> Thanks all for the great feedback;
> "Feedback"?  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.  Are you
> saying that as some sort of representative of the Ubuntu Project?   
> I'm a
> little confused, because I wasn't giving feedback to anyone; I was
> trying to ask my friend Jim Stockford a question.
>> what I'm not sure about is why Ubuntu sysadmins would be upgrading
>> on every release.
> Obviously:  In order to not be still running a 2006 system in late  
> 2009.
> The Debian framework on which Ubuntu is based is, as mentioned,
> extremely capable of supporting a maintenance framework capable of
> keeping a system a pre-decided amount of figurative distance (rawness)
> away from the cutting edge of software development.  What I was asking
> Jim was whether he knew of infrastructure within Ubuntu Server to make
> that possible, as there is for Debian servers.
> Since I run a bunch of Debian servers and one Ubuntu Server box, it
> seemed extremely surprising to me that on the latter, only, upgrading
> seemed to remain a manually initiated and overseen process with some
> small degree of anxiety potential (i.e., worry about having to drop
> everything and work to fix a broken production system).  It occurred  
> to
> me that I might be missing something, so I asked Jim, who seemed to  
> have
> some experience on the subject.
> I'm inferring that you have no answer to my question.  You're instead
> trying to tell me that I shouldn't want to do on Ubuntu Server what I
> routinely do to great benefit on my Debian boxes.  You'll pardon me if
> I'm not falling over myself in appreciation.
>> Stability to me is the top priority on a server, especially a
>> headless, no gui workhorse running key network services.
> I'm sorry, but you're lecturing _me_ on server priorities and
> maintenance?  And who were you, again, son?
> I should probably not comment further on that, since I'm likely to say
> something I'll really regret.
> -- 
> Rick Moen             "The correct spelling is 'Mr. T.'  People who  
> type out
> rick at linuxmafia.com   'Mister' are fools to be pitied."
>                                                     -- FakeAPStylebook
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug

My apologies if I've somehow offended you; since I was the originator  
of the post I appreciate any and all responses. It wasn't an intended  
lecture, just engaging in a conversation about how different people  
administer their networks. If this list isn't the place to ask such  
questions and discuss different approaches to common problems, then  
I'll leave y'all to your "community". Thanks again.

Michael Paric
mparic at compbizsolutions.com

More information about the sf-lug mailing list