Comments on: About Linux Distros: Ubuntu and CentOS http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/ Web Development in a Web 2.0 World Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:48:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Code C6 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-961 Code C6 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:54:42 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-961 I run CentOS and use Ubuntu at work. I can honestly say aside from the obvious - neither are "bad" distros. I learned on RHEL, chose CentOS for my web server due to the similarities of what I was familiar with. Once I began working with Ubuntu due to a job change, everything seemed to come naturally to me. However, I had also worked in a multi-platform server environment for several years. I have no problems with my CentOS and have been running it for a couple years now. The Ubuntu servers I would probably like better if my workplace had actually kept on top of OS refreshes - I think their production distro is Hoary - but I'm working on moving them out of that. I prefer CentOS overall, however, I do like the rename functionality in Ubuntu. CentOS is much easier for me to secure because of it being so similar to RHEL. I know where everything is. With Ubuntu, I've had to scout the FS and learn it's naming conventions, as well as all the little extras that don't seem to serve a function, overall the FS doesn't feel quite as intuitive. For instance - hosts and hostname? why? Most of the time you can research updates and find out what their impact is on the OS before actually implementing them. Sometimes you can save yourself a lot of time by being pro-active. I run CentOS and use Ubuntu at work.
I can honestly say aside from the obvious – neither are “bad” distros.

I learned on RHEL, chose CentOS for my web server due to the similarities of what I was familiar with.
Once I began working with Ubuntu due to a job change, everything seemed to come naturally to me. However, I had also worked in a multi-platform server environment for several years.
I have no problems with my CentOS and have been running it for a couple years now.
The Ubuntu servers I would probably like better if my workplace had actually kept on top of OS refreshes – I think their production distro is Hoary – but I’m working on moving them out of that.
I prefer CentOS overall, however, I do like the rename functionality in Ubuntu.
CentOS is much easier for me to secure because of it being so similar to RHEL. I know where everything is.
With Ubuntu, I’ve had to scout the FS and learn it’s naming conventions, as well as all the little extras that don’t seem to serve a function, overall the FS doesn’t feel quite as intuitive.
For instance – hosts and hostname? why?
Most of the time you can research updates and find out what their impact is on the OS before actually implementing them.
Sometimes you can save yourself a lot of time by being pro-active.

]]> By: Eric Yeoh http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-956 Eric Yeoh Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:55:29 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-956 Hi, I think you should have installed the 6.06 LTS Server version rather than the 7.04 one. I work in the Mobile Entertainment industry and we use a Ubuntu 6.06. server as one of our main texting gateways to our local telcos. I have not seen any issues with it. We also have several Centos 4.x and 5.x servers and I can say that for the one Ubuntu server, I have NEVER had any issues with updates and stability. I cannot honestly say the same for my other Centos servers. From time to time I get timed outs and checksum issues. Having said that I honestly feel that Centos is a very good OS for the server platform. Hi,

I think you should have installed the 6.06 LTS Server version rather than the 7.04 one.

I work in the Mobile Entertainment industry and we use a Ubuntu 6.06. server as one of our main texting gateways to our local telcos.

I have not seen any issues with it. We also have several Centos 4.x and 5.x servers and I can say that for the one Ubuntu server, I have NEVER had any issues with updates and stability. I cannot honestly say the same for my other Centos servers. From time to time I get timed outs and checksum issues.

Having said that I honestly feel that Centos is a very good OS for the server platform.

]]> By: Ron Peled http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-955 Ron Peled Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:13:53 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-955 Robert: I have yet to see a Linux server that is managed without SSH. When I say server I typically assume 1u-4u servers that you put in hosting environments. Nyos: Ubuntu is a Desktop OS but they actually have a server version of their OS. They have a whole team of people dedicated to the Server OS which I met some of them last time I visited the Linux World Expo. Drew: my article is based on my experiences with the different Linux distros we've tried here. When we began working we chose Ubuntu due to all the 'hype' around it. We very quickly learned that Ubuntu is a great distro but not for the Server environment because of the above reasons. Currently, I admit that I am biased - based on experience. Thanks for the great feedback! Robert: I have yet to see a Linux server that is managed without SSH. When I say server I typically assume 1u-4u servers that you put in hosting environments.

Nyos: Ubuntu is a Desktop OS but they actually have a server version of their OS. They have a whole team of people dedicated to the Server OS which I met some of them last time I visited the Linux World Expo.

Drew: my article is based on my experiences with the different Linux distros we’ve tried here. When we began working we chose Ubuntu due to all the ‘hype’ around it. We very quickly learned that Ubuntu is a great distro but not for the Server environment because of the above reasons. Currently, I admit that I am biased – based on experience.

Thanks for the great feedback!

]]> By: nyos http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-954 nyos Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:59:33 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-954 Experts having 5+ years experience in Debian (ancestor of Ubuntu) usually prefer apt-get and apt-cache. That's why You can find these in manuals and todos. However, it's quite safe to write aptitude instead (due to its backward compatibility). The difference between apt-get and apt-cache: - Using apt-cache doesn't modify the system, just provides information (can be executed without being root in most cases). - On the other hand, apt-get modifies the system, requiring sudo with a few exceptions. By the way, Ubuntu is a desktop OS. They do have a server version, and it's called Debian. Experts having 5+ years experience in Debian (ancestor of Ubuntu) usually prefer apt-get and apt-cache. That’s why You can find these in manuals and todos. However, it’s quite safe to write aptitude instead (due to its backward compatibility).
The difference between apt-get and apt-cache:
- Using apt-cache doesn’t modify the system, just provides information (can be executed without being root in most cases).
- On the other hand, apt-get modifies the system, requiring sudo with a few exceptions.

By the way, Ubuntu is a desktop OS. They do have a server version, and it’s called Debian.

]]> By: Robert http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-953 Robert Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:22:50 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-953 One must remember that one way to make a Linux installation more secure is by only installing the packages that one needs. Ubuntu (from my experience) only installs what needs to be there, almost like a blank slate, a foundation if you will. Just because one person is setting up a LAMP server and needs SSH does not mean that all LAMP servers will need SSH, so why install it by default? Wouldn't it be a bigger pain to install and LAMP server and then have to uninstall SSH? I think it would! When installing Ubuntu server it asks what servers (services) you'd like to install. I have not had any problems installing or using Ubuntu server. I wouldn't call myself a "guru" but installing, removing, or updating software using apt is not a difficult task by any means, and I have had much more success with the apt package manager than I have ever had with yum. Ubuntu may not be perfect, but what distro is? It all depends on what the individual (or business) needs out of their OS. That's just my two cents. One must remember that one way to make a Linux installation more secure is by only installing the packages that one needs. Ubuntu (from my experience) only installs what needs to be there, almost like a blank slate, a foundation if you will. Just because one person is setting up a LAMP server and needs SSH does not mean that all LAMP servers will need SSH, so why install it by default? Wouldn’t it be a bigger pain to install and LAMP server and then have to uninstall SSH? I think it would!

When installing Ubuntu server it asks what servers (services) you’d like to install. I have not had any problems installing or using Ubuntu server. I wouldn’t call myself a “guru” but installing, removing, or updating software using apt is not a difficult task by any means, and I have had much more success with the apt package manager than I have ever had with yum.

Ubuntu may not be perfect, but what distro is? It all depends on what the individual (or business) needs out of their OS.

That’s just my two cents.

]]> By: Petri http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-952 Petri Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:37:04 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-952 I have tried both, Ubuntu and CentOS as a LAMP server and I also prefer CentOS. While I do require latest PHP and MySql on my LAMP server, I find it far more convenient to just install PHP from sources, and MySql from their binary packages, than try to figure out how to configure Apache in Ubuntu. In both environments however, webmin does make the configurations easier. I have tried both, Ubuntu and CentOS as a LAMP server and I also prefer CentOS. While I do require latest PHP and MySql on my LAMP server, I find it far more convenient to just install PHP from sources, and MySql from their binary packages, than try to figure out how to configure Apache in Ubuntu.

In both environments however, webmin does make the configurations easier.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-951 Andrew Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:21:05 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-951 I spent many fruitless hours trying to set up Ubuntu as a Xen host, but switched to CentOS 5.1 and it worked immediately. I agree with all your comments about it. But my biggest gripe with RedHat/CentOS is that so many web applications are beginning to require PHP 5.2 as a minimum, and even the upcoming RHEL 5.2 is not going to support this version of PHP. As a result I have just reluctantly switched to Ubuntu on one of my servers. I spent many fruitless hours trying to set up Ubuntu as a Xen host, but switched to CentOS 5.1 and it worked immediately. I agree with all your comments about it.
But my biggest gripe with RedHat/CentOS is that so many web applications are beginning to require PHP 5.2 as a minimum, and even the upcoming RHEL 5.2 is not going to support this version of PHP. As a result I have just reluctantly switched to Ubuntu on one of my servers.

]]> By: John Doe http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-950 John Doe Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:11:30 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-950 Your review is a bit biased, with Ubuntu you can manage all your packages using only aptitude (and dpkg for installing .deb files). Installing a LAMP server + SSH server can be accomplished simply by: sudo tasksel and marking these: [x] LAMP server [x] OpenSSH server Done! If you think yum is better than aptitude then wait and see, in the meantime you should read this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html Your review is a bit biased, with Ubuntu you can manage all your packages using only aptitude (and dpkg for installing .deb files).

Installing a LAMP server + SSH server can be accomplished simply by:

sudo tasksel

and marking these:

[x] LAMP server
[x] OpenSSH server

Done!

If you think yum is better than aptitude then wait and see, in the meantime you should read this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html

]]> By: Drew http://www.activoinc.com/blog/2008/04/13/about-linux-distros-ubuntu-and-centos/comment-page-1/#comment-948 Drew Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:04:14 +0000 http://www.activoinc.com/blog/?p=14#comment-948 Just from quickly reading your blog, it seems you are more familiar and comfortable with Yum and Red Hat's way of doing things. It would probably be more interesting to see this type of comparison being done with 2 people; one more familiar with Red Hat and RPMs/Yum and another more familiar with Debian/Ubuntu and APT-GET. I acutally just installed CentOS (4.3) on my server and agree that it was pretty easy to set it up and get going. Just from quickly reading your blog, it seems you are more familiar and comfortable with Yum and Red Hat’s way of doing things.

It would probably be more interesting to see this type of comparison being done with 2 people; one more familiar with Red Hat and RPMs/Yum and another more familiar with Debian/Ubuntu and APT-GET.

I acutally just installed CentOS (4.3) on my server and agree that it was pretty easy to set it up and get going.

]]>