[sf-lug] Linux Server Preferences

[jim]

   micheal, your responses seem interesting, caused me 
some thought (a good thing). 
   rick, i'm running ubuntu server 9.04 and haven't 
faced the upgrade yet (i'm now working on getting 
laptops to 9.10). previously i was using CentOS and/or 
Whitebox for server hosts. 
   so bottom line is i don't know. the new sf-lug box 
is running debian with XEN; michael paoli and i will 
make the move together, and i'll ask him about the 
debian way. then i'll have to face my own server OS 
upgrade. 
   "hope for the best" is a worrisome phrase. 
   in a couple of weeks i will probably be posting 
rueful questions to this list as well as to the ubuntu 
server mailing list, and i won't forget your interest. 
   one tho't i've had is to clone the existing (small) 
file systems onto a laptop or small desktop machine 
that's lying around and put that in place; take the 
primary box offline then rebuild the 9.10 OS on the 
primary server host, then copy the files back on. a 
lot more work, but sidesteps the risk of some new, 
improved feature collapsing what i've got working: 
worst case, restore the image on the primary box and 
research some more. 

   as to that 3GB storage/ 64MB RAM box, wow. 

   best i can do for now. 
jim 



On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 20:01 -0800, Michael Paric wrote:
> 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
> www.compbizsolutions.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>