Ubuntu 9.10 Thread

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Though 9.10 should have improved support for installing to iSCSI, it doesn't yet work terribly well. Shame cause its mentioned in the release notes as a major feature.

iSCSI is a SAN-protocol, allowing a computer on the network to hold all data for the workstations, allowing the workstations to run Ubuntu without any local disks installed. This allows for more reliable and manageable storage, plus the advantages of having no HDDs in your workstations: quiet, less prone to errors or crashes.

I got it working though, but not thanks to the Ubuntu people. :p
Other than this, Ubuntu 9.10 is pretty sleek. At least Ubuntu is getting better each half year, while microsoft operating systems just appear to be getting worse, or at least the direction they're going to is not the right one in my view.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
I don't think Windows OSs are getting alot worse, they just aren't getting alot better. Development is going to be inherently slower on such a large OS though, especially when paying customers are involved, as opposed to Linux where you pay nothing and are owed nothing. Windows has to work, Linux does not (at least the non-commercial ones don't). Therefore Linux can be more experimental.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Linux does not have to work? Windows does?

I do not agree. Linux is not some toy; it runs half the internet, even more than Windows-based servers. Why should Linux not have to work?

In my case, i depend greatly on Linux as its my main OS for both personal usage and business usage. If it wouldn't work and i couldn't fix it, i would switch to another OS. I need a working solution.

The days that Linux was some toy to experiment with are long gone.
 

audiovoodoo

Illustrious


But many of them are written by RedHat and placed into Fedora for public testing. So really the advancement is VERY fast at RedHat, it's just that they push it out as a stable and periodic set of updates.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator

Because unless you are paying for a commercial distribution it is not the obligation of the developers to provide you with working software. You didn't pay for the software, or for support, whereas with Windows you do. This is what I'm getting at. You may want it to work, but you can't expect it to work as though that is owed to you.


I absolutely agree, but that doesn't change my point.



But the actual RHEL distribution is not as "experimental" as Fedora, which brings me back to the statement I made earlier that the commercial distributions (I did not mention the developers) improve at a slower rate.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
I still do not agree.

Most Windows versions consumers are running are OEM versions; those come without any support from Microsoft. If the product does not work properly, Microsoft will not even talk to you but say "contact your OEM supplier for support". If you do that, they will not talk to you or discuss the problem until you've wiped your entire harddrive by using their restore cd/dvd. That cd/dvd is not a clean Windows install but rather an integrated package with lots of spyware, adware, bloatware and other *** you don't need, didn't ask for and don't want. Is that called support?

For open source versions of Linux, especially Ubuntu, there is support, in the form of a central website with lots of information and a forum where you can ask just about any question no matter if it falls slightly outside the scope of the operating system itself. In most cases, the issue you're having already has a solution or workaround found using google.

The only substitute Microsoft offers is their Knowledge Base, which is a good reference for many issues but cannot replace a user support forum since you cannot ask any questions and is limited to the core operating system itself.

While ofcourse many forums exist where you can ask questions about Windows, like this forum, it's all unofficial whereas with Ubuntu and other free open source operating systems, you do have official forums. A central place where every user of that OS should be able to get at least an answer to the issue he/she is having.

So i would conclude that in reality, Linux users do get support whereas Microsoft Windows users are cleaverly put in a position where they don't have (official) support. Even if you pay six times as much for Windows to get support, i'm sure they won't be as helpful as the people i've met on the Ubuntu forums; they really want to help you, depending on the case ofcourse.

I can expect the FOSS community to care about their users, i cannot expect the same from Microsoft. Their only goal is making shitloads of money, and they've done that breaking the law or barely breaking the law. Time for people to open their eyes and see they do have a choice and there is an alternative.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
I never said Windows' support was good or Ubuntu's was bad, I simply said that when you pay for a product you can expect support, and when you don't pay for a product you can't. It doesn't mean you won't get it, which from what I got out of your post you seem to think I'm implying.

It seems we have a different idea of what constitutes an expectation, so we'll have to agree to disagree, and allow the thread to go back to (hopefully) helping people who have issues, even though they'll get alot more help on the official forums due to the sheer number of users.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Well i guess my point is that "paid support" is overestimated, more than likely you'll pay for something but won't get 'real' support. Professional support some serious companies are getting would be considered real support, but those have prices with at least 4 numbers.

Just read your first post though, and you wanted this to be a support thread. :)
Sorry about that, just thought some discussion about Ubuntu was nice too.

But indeed the Ubuntu forums seems like a more logical place to get help. The Linux/BSD forum is also awfully quiet. :(
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator

Having this thread linked from a news article was supposed to help with that, but it may take a link from a major article to really pull the traffic. Adam Overa and I have been trying to bring traffic here and this is attempt #1 at turning plans into action.
 

audiovoodoo

Illustrious
But Toms really has never been a pro linux site. All the home server build articles give build costs that exclude the OS but then give Windows specific instructions. You just don't find the sort of articles on Toms that would attract the Linux hard core and frankly the guides at sites like Ubuntu Forums or the many Wiki's out there are a better place for novices.

Maybe Tom's should give us a community challenge, take the regulars in the Windows sections and put them head to head with the Linux crew down here. Low cost home server / firewall or something like that. Set the budget and see what each side produces.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Would it be nice/possible if i wrote an article for Tom about building a Linux/BSD fileserver? Just an idea. :)

For example "Build your own NAS with ZFS filesystem from scratch".
 

audiovoodoo

Illustrious
[Devil mode] I suppose we ought to include the guys from the to be created iSection for a 3 way geek fest. If MU turns up or iJack is up for it we can show how BSD without a slick GUI can be a hell of a lot less expensive. [/Devil mode]
 
Does "without a slick GUI" mean "with a simple GUI" or "without any GUI". I'm for the latter; who needs a GUI for a server? But I do make the concession of using Webmin.

Funnily enough I've just spent today setting up a FreeBSD 8 server as an iScsi target, subversion, and postgresql server. I'll probably put BackupPC and a few other things on it later. I decided against ZFS as I've only got 2GB RAM and I'm not fully convinced that ZFS is stable on FreeBSD yet (had a bad experience before, but that was with ony 1GB of RAM). When the dedupe is included I may look again.
 

audiovoodoo

Illustrious


Don't bother. We've just been given eviction notice downstairs and the last thing I want is to provide any form of input that would benefit BoM right now.
 

lotus_44

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
I thought the new ubuntu 9.10 would be great until i changed over . IN the upgrade install ikilled one of my partitons with all my data on it ( luckily i also have it on an external hd) but the big surprise was that the system is soooooo slow. I just can't believe it. Mind you i am using only 32 bit version because there is some stuff that doesn't run on 64 bit. I have full use of 3GB RAM, a fast grahic card from NVIDIA and a big 200 GB drive. I am returning to version 9.4 and awaiting major changes.
Hope someone figures out what the problem is. O yes, on my first upgrade install - suggested in the Ubuntu magazine - the system crashed and left me with almost nothing to start on
sudo apt-get install update-manager-core
sudo do-release-upgrade

thanks for allowing me to voice. Actually i am disappointed but i am sure those fantastic fellows in the open source and they are doing a fantastic job in comparison to .... i won't mention the name. Thanks for your dedicated input and work!!!
cheers
heinz
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS