Nick McAlpin wrote: > I'm sorry, but if you want stability for a Server etc, you'd be going > with RHEL, SELD or Cent OS, because they are the most stable (nowhere > near the best, especially Cent OS), but they are rock stable. > Ubuntu's market should be the end-user market of regular people, not > business. Ubuntu is meant to be the cutting-edge, desirable and easy > to use Linux System, not the stable, corporate one!
True as this may be (though I'd not put any of those on a server), it's patently not Canonical's view, and I've seen many a server happily run Ubuntu. Really, though, there's nothing to Ubuntu that makes it particularly poor in a server, perhaps it's not so well suited to a heterogenous pool of them (I've never had the pleasure of such a collection of machines), but as standalone boxes they're absolutely fine. -- Avi -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
