Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


32 bit 12.04 or 64 bit 12.04 or 32 bit 14.04 or 64 bit 14.04 for low end boxes? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

32 bit 12.04 or 64 bit 12.04 or 32 bit 14.04 or 64 bit 14.04 for low end boxes?

2»

Comments

  • @William said:
    I switched from Debian 7 to UB 14.04 and use exclusively 64Bit (also on smaller servers, the loss is not much relevant)

    Why did you switch?

  • hostnoob said: Why did you switch?

    Shuttleworth's vision of applying so much crap onto Ubuntu like Amazon integration to make it equally or more worthless like Windows/Apple. That's why some folks choose Debian.

  • Also this may surprise a lot of people, which is funny because I thought it was common knowledge, but Debian came first before Ubuntu. They share the same package system.

  • @doughmanes said:

    Willam said he switched FROM Debian to Ubuntu which is why I asked

  • More recent software versions and ease of use.

  • Please tell me why do you all use ubuntu. It's a shit. It's highly-fucked-up Debian.

    If you want to be top-notch, then use Debian Experiemental version. It's will be more stable than 'stable' ubuntu.

    If you want stable service without bugs, use Debian Wheezy (Stable).

    32-bit is the only choice for lowendbox.

    Thanked by 1doughmanes
  • Profforg said: If you want to be top-notch, then use Debian Experiemental version. It's will be more stable than 'stable' ubuntu.

    I tested Debian 8 and it is FAR from being as stable as even UB 11.

    Thanked by 1Dylan
  • @William said:

    What was not stable? Any specifics?

  • ZigaraZigara Member

    @Profforg said:
    Please tell me why do you all use ubuntu. It's a shit. It's highly-fucked-up Debian.

    If you want to be top-notch, then use Debian Experiemental version. It's will be more stable than 'stable' ubuntu.

    If you want stable service without bugs, use Debian Wheezy (Stable).

    32-bit is the only choice for lowendbox.

    What a load of shit.

    Care to back that up with some logic?

    I've been running both Debian and Ubuntu Server LTS for many many many years in production. They are equally 'stable'.

    This Debian vs Ubuntu is purely based on peoples emotions. In reality they're both very solid and stable.

    I went with Ubuntu Server LTS because it had newer packages while still maintaing a long term support release. I still have a machine running 10.04 from 2010 which is still supported till next year.

    It's clear this topic is about Ubuntu. If you don't like it, start your own topic.

    Thanked by 2serverian Dylan
  • @Zigara said:
    Care to back that up with some logic?

    You are asking something that can not be delivered.

  • William said: I tested Debian 8 and it is FAR from being as stable as even UB 11.

    It does not fix curves hands.

    Zigara said: I've been running both Debian and Ubuntu Server LTS for many many many years in production. They are equally 'stable'.

    This Debian vs Ubuntu is purely based on peoples emotions. In reality they're both very solid and stable.

    I went with Ubuntu Server LTS because it had newer packages while still maintaing a long term support release. I still have a machine running 10.04 from 2010 which is still supported till next year.

    The problem is that ubuntu is still Debian, but breaks many things. Thousands of install scripts for Debian will not work on ubuntu; guides for Debian may not be OK for ubuntu; every month releases kills me - why should people support these hundreds of ubuntu versions? Also these 'newer packages' usually not tested and come with hundreds of bugs, which is not usual on Debian testing or experiemental versions.

    Debian is much better for long-term, because there are no new version every month. And when it release, it will be widely adopted and used by people.

    Ubuntu is for desktops, not for servers. Stop using it for servers, it's crazy.

  • DylanDylan Member

    Profforg said: And when it release, it will be widely adopted and used by people.

    Ubuntu has more website server market share than CentOS and RHEL combined, and is on track to overtake Debian for the number one spot within a few quarters at most.

    It doesn't matter one bit if you think it should be a server OS -- it is one, and that's not going to change any time soon.

    http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all

  • Ubuntu releases in a static period, every 6 months, no matter it's stable or not.

    Debian releases when it's ready to be released.

    Very simple reason to choose Debian.

    Thanked by 1Profforg
  • ZigaraZigara Member
    edited July 2014

    You seem to have the normal releases confused with the long term support releases.

    If you're running the bleeding edge release, you might run into issues, you're beta testing, and you shouldn't be running that on a server.

    In early 2010, I was still running a lot of Debian (lenny was stable then) on my production servers, but started trying out Ubuntu Server LTS 10.04.

    After 2 years of production, suddenly lenny was no longer supported and the repos were removed and the only choice I had was to attempt an upgrade on a live production server, which caused me more issues than reinstalling with squeeze.

    The Ubuntu machine I setup in 2010 is still receiving long term support till 2015. I am still receiving all the security patches and kernel updates, etc.

    I read Debian is finally experimenting with long term support releases, and that is quite exciting to hear. I hope it goes well they decide to implement that on future releases.

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS - don't run non-LTS on a server. Simple. That's how it's supposed to be.

  • doughmanesdoughmanes Member
    edited July 2014

    Profforg said: Please tell me why do you all use ubuntu. It's a shit. It's highly-fucked-up Debian.

    The software numbers are bigger than Debian's software version numbers and all the kids know that bigger numbers = better.

  • ProfforgProfforg Member
    edited July 2014

    Dylan said: Ubuntu has more website server market share than CentOS and RHEL combined, and is on track to overtake Debian for the number one spot within a few quarters at most.

    It doesn't matter one bit if you think it should be a server OS -- it is one, and that's not going to change any time soon.

    http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all

    Hmm. This count is just websites and only if owner do not hide system info. When i setup server i take a steps to hide all information about software and OS itself, and i think there can be other people act like this.
    CentOS is used mostly only by control panels like CPanel. With CPanel there are usually no alternatives (or alternatives worser than CentOS).
    ubuntu is being used sometimes for testing (i guess because this system has the biggest number of rare bugs). Probably big part of it's users uses ubuntu because of name...

    I never heard that someone uses ubuntu for something serious. CloudFlare uses Debian base. NASA uses Debian. Many others serious businesses use Debian. No one seriously use ubuntu for big projects.

    doughmanes said: The software numbers are bigger than Debian's software version numbers and all the kids know that bigger numbers = better.

    Profforg said: If you want to be top-notch, then use Debian Experiemental version.

Sign In or Register to comment.