[Klug-general] Re: You can't dis apple

[Karl Lattimer]

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:13 +0000, J D Freeman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:43:40PM +0000, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> > MAKE UP YOUR F*CKING MIND!!!! You either want to hide everything on the
> > desktop or show it?!?!?

>> Great, all there, just not easily accessable.

Is it so hard to open a terminal?

> 
> > And you use debian on the desktop. Its about as stable as a weeble! Get
> > some RHEL on your servers and get fedora on your desktop! Get something
> > which isn't tested by four geeks in a shed!
> 
> Now, if there was any indication you didn't understand the point, this
> was it.
> 
> I have debian installs running which have over 430 days uptime. I have
> debian systems setup and running in seconds.

Anaconda kickstart anyone?

BTW: Uptime isn't a good rating of stability, if you've got a rogue
piece of kernel code destroying part of your raid array in silent the OS
is still unstable even though the uptime is OK and it didn't GPF or KP.

> This summer I found a bug in mdadm, I emailed people about it.
> 
> It wasn't fixed.
> 
> I met Martin Kraft at the Debian BBQ, bought him a pint, and it was
> fixed by the end of the week.
> 
> Thats what I like about debian.

That is what I'd hate about debian, especially in something as important
as mdadm. File the same bug to redhat, someone would fix it within 24
hours.

> I don't know what you are bassing your stability issues on, but I have
> no issues with it atall. This can't be said for my experience with red
> hat.

Based on the fact that debian isn't majorly supported by users, their
user base for servers is way lower than redhat, the build system is
archaic IMHO and lastly, it isn't a certified OS by any hardware vendor.
Is that enough of a reason not to risk a business on it.

REAL IT risk management would not let you put debian on a server because
there could be issues with the kernel that are quiet. Verified and
managed build processes with many a bug hunter and a thorough testing
process make it less of a risk to use redhat, especially as Dell, HP,
IBM and many others recommend it for servers.

> 
> But hey, what do I know. I only have over 60 machines running debian.
> Not like I use it in anger or anything.

You obviously don't know enough about the OS's to comment on it. Volume
of machines is no indication at how good you are at running them or how
good you are at managing the risk.

I don't want to have to buy someone a pint to prevent mdadm from
breaking my raid array. Thats just f*cking ludicrous! 

K,