DebianThis forum is for the discussion of Debian Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Hard to install? I put the disk in and basically hit enter a few times. Wireless even worked out-of-the-box. I am lazy GUI user the first app I install is Synaptic, followed by running exoodles for all the multimedia apps/codecs. 15-30 minutes later I have all apps I need.
$ inxi -F
System: Host debian Kernel 2.6.32-5-686 i686 (32 bit) Distro Debian GNU/Linux 6.0
CPU: Single core Intel Pentium M (-UP-) cache 1024 KB flags (sse sse2) bmips 1196.24 clocked at 600.00 MHz
Graphics: Card ATI Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500] X.Org 1.7.7 Res: firstname.lastname@example.org
GLX Renderer Software Rasterizer GLX Version 2.1 Mesa 7.7.1 Direct Rendering Yes
Audio: Card Intel 82801DB/DBL/DBM (ICH4/ICH4-L/ICH4-M) AC'97 Audio Controller driver Intel ICH at ports 1c00 18c0 BusID: 00:1f.5
Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Version 1.0.21
Network: Card-1 Intel 82801DB PRO/100 VE (MOB) Ethernet Controller driver e100 v: 3.5.24-k2-NAPI at port 8000 BusID: 02:08.0
Card-2 Intel PRO/Wireless LAN 2100 3B Mini PCI Adapter driver ipw2100 v: git-1.2.2 BusID: 02:02.0
Disks: HDD Total Size: 17.2GB (36.5% used) 1: /dev/sda IC25N020ATCS04 17.2GB
Partition: ID:/ size: 16G used: 5.9G (41%) fs: ext3 ID:/boot size: 228M used: 18M (9%) fs: ext2
ID:swap-1 size: 0.51GB used: 0.02GB (4%) fs: swap
Sensors: System Temperatures: cpu: 41.0C mobo: 41.0C
Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: 0
Info: Processes 115 Uptime 3:09 Memory 148.7/248.3MB Runlevel 2 Client Shell inxi 1.4.23
I am not big specialist, but I can advocate Ubuntu (Advocate of Devil? ). As long as there is Ubuntu server edition, why can't they compete with Debian on server market?
Ubuntu can compete on the server market all they want, as long as consumers look past the ad campaign and realize that
-Ubuntu is slower
-Ubuntu is buggier
-Ubuntu is backed by a corporation and therefore subject to bankruptcy
An Ubuntu server has the advantage of being deployed quickly, with GUI tools to help things along. However, a Debian sysadmin should be able to deploy a Debian server just as quickly, and God forbid you have a server run by someone who needs Ubuntu's GUI tools.
I haven't used debian for a couple of years but I know what it stands for. Having read the review I also think that it wasn't fair. Ancient looking installer? Is that supposed to be
a valid criterion? I don't think so.
Thanks for your replies.
I don't deny I am not expert in Linux. I am a starter. If I cannot do anything in Linux because I don't know how, this might be well because it is not obvious. Of course, for gurus like you everything is just a matter of pair of CLI commands. For me - I am looking from point of view of inexperienced user.
When talking about "good admins" deploying Debian or Ubuntu servers, you're absolutely right when talking about Big Guns market. But if we move focus to SOHO market, there is no need in such a heavy weight. If server can be administered by semi-professional using GUI tools, that might be sufficient for SOHO. Why can't Ubuntu compete there?
Ubuntu/Canonical is a corporation. It definitely can go bust. But RHCE, SuSE, Solaris are also corporate products. Why do people still using them?
Then, I told you... I am advocating Devil. 8-)))))))))
Nothing can be more challenging than controversial comment!
There is nothing wrong in using products made by a corporation. If the product fits your needs. If you are happy with Ubuntu server then use it. I am not. I never would use a server OS that is not well tested and is even released buggy only to fit in a release schedule. It doesn't matter if you run a server for a big company or just SOHO, or simply for private use, I want a stable system.
There is also nothing wrong in using a GUI for administrating (besides the security risks), for example Webmin. You can use GUIs on any server system, so there is no need for a Ubuntu server only because of the GUI.
But RHCE, SuSE, Solaris are also corporate products. Why do people still using them?
Red Hat is the only successful corporate Linux vendor as far as I know. SuSE is a joke now that Novell has entered several deals with Microsoft and sold itself to a Microsoft-friendly company. Solaris has been forked into a community OS after Oracle's takeover of Sun.
I have no quarrel with you, or anyone who uses Ubuntu. All I ask is that people consider the pro's and con's of the distribution before supporting its use over older distributions such as Debian, Slackware, etc.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy/Jessie/Sid, Linux Mint DE
It is a well-known fact that market penetration has nothing to do with quality, but everything with marketing. What you are demonstrating is that market penetration of Ubuntu server has increased. It doesn't make a statement about quality.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Originally Posted by darkduck
But if we move focus to SOHO market, there is no need in such a heavy weight. If server can be administered by semi-professional using GUI tools, that might be sufficient for SOHO. Why can't Ubuntu compete there?
Last time I looked Ubuntu Server Edition (10.10) was released as CLI only.
I realise your being "devil's advocate" and all that but your discussion is flawed simply because you don't seem to know what is actually offered by the different distributions. If you had a better understanding, and I encourage you to read the websites widely but also to test the individual distributions as they are offered (i.e. base install first) so you can see for yourself, your discussion would be much better informed.
Location: Europe:Salzburg Austria USA:Orlando,Florida;
By your own admission, you state that you are for all intensive purposes a Newbie
What give you the right to criticize? I have used Ubuntu in the past when it first came out and immediately went back to Debian. I found stability problems as well as deficiencies in speed even at CLI level.