Comments for A Year in the Life of a BSD GuruFollow the ups and downs of a BSD sysadmin, trainer, author and advocate while gaining insight into the BSD community and what it is like to live in the shadow of Linux, BSD's younger but flashier cousin.Comment by abdullah on Creating Your Own FreeBSD 7.0 DVD- September 16, 2008 Thanks man that was an awesome tutorial, I just wanted you to know its working with me. I did it from ubuntu-8.10 with the help of andy's post too. thanks again. Peace, Abdullah !! Entry Link:http:it.toolbox.comblogsbsd-gurucreating-your-own-freebsd-70-dvd-22791!!http://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/creatin... Comment by "Michael Schenck" on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 14, 2008 My employer also has selected Ubuntu as the distribution to grace our Linux servers. Compared to other Enterprise distributions it is very slim out of the box and the Long Term Support (LTS) releases also add to its advantages. !! Entry Link:http:it.toolbox.comblogsbsd-guruubuntu-not-being-deployed-on-servers-27122!!http://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by Solarix on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 14, 2008 There are few points why Ubuntu looks attractive for Enterprise, i thought so too, a few years ago. It's cheap, easy to set up and you get a lot of packages. They also tried to get certified for IBM DB2 with Dapper Drake, it's also certified for a few Sun machines, like the Coolthread Machines, or the x86based Sun Boxes , but if you have a look at this Bug ID you might understand why i'm absoluthttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by Brian Masinick on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 13, 2008 To the last point, a Ubuntu server is not just a Sid based distribution. Frankly, I am not sure that I would run a Sid based server, though I DO run Sid based desktops (and prefer them). My favorite desktop distro is sidux, which tames Sid quite a bit. If I am not mistaken, the LTS versions of Ubuntu (6.06 and 8.04) use software that has been tested and stabilized. Whether it originally came from Sid or not, I am not sure, but the ongoing nature of it feels more like Stable than Sid.http://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by "Oliver Herold" on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 12, 2008 >Ubuntu Server boots incredibly fast, much faster than FreeBSD How many times do you restart your servers I wouldn't even notice this on my desktop. >it's supported for 4-5 years; Well we will see. >and its upgrade mechanism is very good You know in the end it's just Debian with the 'latest' packages taken from SID and hopefully cleaned up. >as contrasted to plain Debian Did you ever use Debian on a server You havehttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by Locutus on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 11, 2008 therek I do realise it is not exactly what you had in mind but I don't think that is quite possible. As the kernel and modules are accessed by whatever services those services would still need to be bounced so they can release their connections to the old kernel and connect to the new one. Maybe some bright spark could figure out a way. My spark has dimmed somewhat as my beard gets whiter :) !! Entry Link: a href="http:it.toolbox.comblogsbsd-guruubuntu-not-being-deployed-on-serhttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by "Ivan Voras" on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 11, 2008 Ubuntu Server is actually a very nice system. When it works (and I haven't really had a serious problem with it) it works very well, is easy to deploy and is generally very low-maintenance. As a FreeBSD user it appeals to me for three reasons: a) the default installation is as minimalistic or more so than FreeBSD (no Sendmail, BIND, etc.), b) as contrasted to plain Debian, the packages are much newer (the credit for this is mostly due to Ubuntu's short development cycles) and c) the packages arhttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by therek on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 11, 2008 Locutus: indeed kexec seems to be pretty cool (I've tried it on my Debian box at work) but that's not actually what I had in mind. The killer feature would be to switch kernels migrating all processes, so that your Apache woul not stop serving webpages. And of course, the issue Dru point out. Dru: the problem with servers (at least x86x64) is that about 23 of boot process is BIOS and hardware boot, and the rest is operating system booting. So, being able to reboot only the OS is savhttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by Locutus on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 11, 2008 Thats a good catch Dru. I missed that one :) In the man page it mentions that the -f argument forces an immediate shutdown and implies that the -e argument calls shutdown. I will have to trawl the source to find out for sure though. !! Entry Link: Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers!!http://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... Comment by jonabyte on Ubuntu Not Being Deployed on Servers- September 11, 2008 Did you even try this version of Ubuntu or research it before writing this I think you just read the title of the article and formed your own opinion, fine for a personal blog,but not fine for a site like this. For one it does not have a pretty GUI (as someone has mentioned) and second it does not come with everything but the kitchen sink, unless you install it that way, you can just select what servers you want on your system. !! Entry Link:http:it.toolbox.comblogsbsdhttp://networking.ittoolbox.com/r/rss.asp?url=http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/ubuntu-... |