PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu as Enterprise OS?



Jestersage
June 22nd, 2009, 10:03 PM
Considering the "Is Ubuntu ready for desktop" been beaten to a PULP (and I found the answer — it works if you have a good OEM) I am wondering: do you guys consider Ubuntu to be ready as an enterprise distribution— especially when compare to CentOS, Debian, Slackware, Arch Linux, and OpenSolaris?

(No, do not throw in Fedora or openSuSE).

SunnyRabbiera
June 22nd, 2009, 10:06 PM
Yes it is, Ubuntu's enterprise stakes are just as good as the others.

cb951303
June 22nd, 2009, 10:06 PM
what's the difference between enterprise and desktop distro?

1) Commercial support
2) Stability through old but tested applications

so, Ubuntu *LTS* can be considered as an enterprise OS :popcorn:

LowSky
June 22nd, 2009, 10:08 PM
(No, do not throw in Fedora or openSuSE).
What is wrong with Fedora or OpenSuse, both are based on their respective companies enterprise editions?

Any server based/enterprise edition of will run generly the same in my opinion. it will come down to the update cycle ans stability of the applications I would think.

SunnyRabbiera
June 22nd, 2009, 10:08 PM
what's the difference between enterprise and desktop distro?

1) Commercial support
2) Stability through old but tested applications

so, Ubuntu *LTS* can be considered as an enterprise OS :popcorn:

Indeed, though perhaps Debian is a better choice concerning stability, same with BSD

LowSky
June 22nd, 2009, 10:12 PM
Indeed, though perhaps Debian is a better choice concerning stability, same with BSD

Stable in what sense. Any verison is "stable" when you dont update it for long periods of time.

SunnyRabbiera
June 22nd, 2009, 10:17 PM
Stable in what sense. Any verison is "stable" when you dont update it for long periods of time.

True but still for most Debian is rock solid.

ibutho
June 22nd, 2009, 10:19 PM
I think it really depends on what exactly you will be using the distro for. For most server tasks, Ubuntu is just as good as the other distros, but it lags behind Debian and RHEL/CentOS in terms of stability (they are tested for a lot longer than most Ubuntu releases). I also think that SUSE and RHEL/CentOS/Fedora have better system configuration and admin tools than Ubuntu (probably why Ubuntu is now using some of them), but this is just a personal opinion.

steveneddy
June 22nd, 2009, 10:30 PM
True but still for most Debian is rock solid.

Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy LTS is "rock solid" for me. I have it installed on my laptop which I use on the road exclusively for everything, and two desktops running Hardy.

One laptop running 8.10 Intrepid away at college with #2 daughter. "rock solid" for her also.

I've been using this same laptop for work and personal use for almost three years now and Ubuntu has never let me down.

I was running 6.06 LTS on a server at home for "media" things in the house, but that "server" was converted back to a desktop PC.

Is Ubuntu ready for desktop Enterprise mass distribution? My answer is a resounding YES!

I also believe Enterprise to mean the LTS releases.

Greg
June 22nd, 2009, 10:36 PM
Considering the "Is Ubuntu ready for desktop" been beaten to a PULP (and I found the answer — it works if you have a good OEM) I am wondering: do you guys consider Ubuntu to be ready as an enterprise distribution— especially when compare to CentOS, Debian, Slackware, Arch Linux, and OpenSolaris?

(No, do not throw in Fedora or openSuSE).

Slackware and Arch for enterprise OSs?

If a business does its own tech support, then the LTS for Ubuntu is fine. However, RHEL and Suse are both better choices because they offer a real paid support; they are true enterprise OSs. Debian may be a better choice due to the increased stability, and for a business I'd be more likely to trust it, but either work fine.

Twitch6000
June 22nd, 2009, 10:38 PM
Why not mention fedora or opensuse..

Suse is greta for an enterprise os...

As for fedora It can be aswell...

Anyways I would choose Debain or Suse.

Jestersage
June 22nd, 2009, 10:54 PM
Why not mention fedora or opensuse.

Because it is not as stable, and even community support cycle is minimal once a new version comes out?

Another way I want to approach this question: Why would you pick Ubuntu over others (especially Debian)?

Dragonbite
June 23rd, 2009, 01:48 PM
Considering the "Is Ubuntu ready for desktop" been beaten to a PULP (and I found the answer — it works if you have a good OEM) I am wondering: do you guys consider Ubuntu to be ready as an enterprise distribution— especially when compare to CentOS, Debian, Slackware, Arch Linux, and OpenSolaris?

(No, do not throw in Fedora or openSuSE).

Partially depends on what your target is for "enterprise"? Server? Business Desktops? Developers? Don't include Fedora or openSUSE? Include Arch and Slackware? Do I sense someone's opinion coming out in this question?

CentOS for Enterprise is a fairly no-brainer considering it is Red Hat without the subscription. If you would think Red Hat is ready for enterprise then CentOS is ready for enterprise.

Debian is ready, but may take a little more configuring to get it ready for enterprise desktops. At least that's my understanding.

Ubuntu LTS is ready for enterprise from what I can see. It's been solid for me pretty much, though some things that didn't work in 8.04 were fixed in 8.10 and 9.04 but I don't know if 8.04.3 will rectify any of that.

OpenSolaris shows promise, though they are still fairly young. Give a short amount of time and support and it could really be a great distribution for all 3 purposes. A lot will depend on the Oracle factor.

I have never heard of anybody putting the works "Arch" and "Enterprise" together before. What's with all these Arch-boys here anyway? ;)

Not including Fedora I can agree with. Then again, it is aimed at being the "test bed" to some degree and so some instability is expected.

OpenSUSE, on the other hand, is pretty stable and provides tools to integrate into an enterprise. It runs well as a server and as a desktop and for development work included the (sometimes considered bad word) Mono and .NET development which an Enterprise may desire despite what the community howls about.

For Enterprises, the ones I think that will work the best are CentOS, openSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian and I'll throw in OpenSolaris because it's pretty good. Oh, and don't forget BSD!

cb951303
June 24th, 2009, 08:13 AM
Another way I want to approach this question: Why would you pick Ubuntu over others (especially Debian)?

commercial support from canonical?

sim-value
June 24th, 2009, 08:21 AM
Arch for enterprise so much nonsense ...

toupeiro
June 24th, 2009, 08:24 AM
OP:

What specifically are you referring to with when you say "especially CentOS, Redhat.." etc etc?

Enterprise support? Check...
Huge community presence? Check...
LTS? Check...
Excellent package management system? Check...
Active Directory support? Check...



I don't really see anything about redhat, CentOS, or Suse that sets them aside from ubuntu other than longevity in enterprise market. That doesn't mean ubuntu is an inferior product in the enterprise.

Jestersage
June 24th, 2009, 08:45 AM
OP:

What specifically are you referring to with when you say "especially CentOS, Redhat.." etc etc?

Enterprise support? Check...
Huge community presence? Check...
LTS? Check...
Excellent package management system? Check...
Active Directory support? Check...



The reason I ask is that Ubuntu, though 3x more stable than Fedora and 2x more stable than openSuSE, is still cutting edge compare to Debian, even the LTS version. I do not doubt its functionalities, but its stability.

Of course, considering Google use Ubuntu...

And the reason I throw in Arch is everyone seems to talk abotu Arch. May as well as throw it in.

cb951303
June 24th, 2009, 09:58 AM
The reason I ask is that Ubuntu, though 3x more stable than Fedora and 2x more stable than openSuSE, is still cutting edge compare to Debian, even the LTS version. I do not doubt its functionalities, but its stability.

Of course, considering Google use Ubuntu...

And the reason I throw in Arch is everyone seems to talk abotu Arch. May as well as throw it in.

well, Arch is a rolling distro which means it's as cutting edge as it can be, all the time :)

Ubuntu 8.04 is pretty stable, that's what it counts at the end. To me, it's more than ready for enterprise use.

sim-value
June 24th, 2009, 12:19 PM
well, Arch is a rolling distro which means it's as cutting edge as it can be, all the time :)

Ubuntu 8.04 is pretty stable, that's what it counts at the end. To me, it's more than ready for enterprise use.
And this is NOT wanted in an enterprise ...

cb951303
June 24th, 2009, 12:43 PM
And this is NOT wanted in an enterprise ...

that's what I was aiming for --in case it's not clear in my response :)

jowilkin
June 24th, 2009, 01:15 PM
For enterprise I think you only consider distros with commercial support. So the big ones as far as I know are Rat Hat Enterprise Linux (paid version of CentOS), Suse Enterprise, and Ubuntu.

I love Arch, but no way I would use it as an enterprise OS, you don't want to be constantly updating and changing versions on a bunch of pcs.

monsterstack
June 24th, 2009, 01:23 PM
Arch as an Enterprise OS. Sheesh.

Anyhow, the French Police are rolling out Ubuntu across all of their machines right now. Canonical are so happy about it that they're offering their full support for free. And it seems it's been quite successful so far.

.Maleficus.
June 24th, 2009, 03:14 PM
I personally wouldn't use Ubuntu as an enterprise solution again (I had my web server running it for the longest time, I just didn't like it) but it is quite ready to be a viable solution. For an "enterprise desktop" I'd almost cetainly use CentOS/Red Hat/Fedora because of their well established position in the enterprise-solutions community and for a web/file/FTP server I'd probably go with FreeBSD or OpenBSD (most likely the latter). I can't say I'd recommend Arch as an enterprise solution though; I do use it to run my server now but the fact that it's rolling release makes it pretty unsuitable for something that needs to be rock-solid stable 24/7.

NightwishFan
June 24th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Slackware and Arch for enterprise OSs?

If a business does its own tech support, then the LTS for Ubuntu is fine. However, RHEL and Suse are both better choices because they offer a real paid support; they are true enterprise OSs. Debian may be a better choice due to the increased stability, and for a business I'd be more likely to trust it, but either work fine.

Ubuntu has paid support. That is part of Canonical's business. You can even get support plans when you buy a laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed.

Dragonbite
June 24th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Ubuntu has paid support. That is part of Canonical's business. You can even get support plans when you buy a laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed.

That alone moves Ubuntu to in front of Debian and includes it in the "top 3".

Paid-for support choices
Red Hat
SLED/SLES
Ubuntu


Non-Paid for support choices
CentOS (Red Hat)
openSUSE (SLED/SLES)
Ubuntu


So Ubuntu does have an advantage.. you can use it with or without support and possibly deploy it, and then if the need arises pay for support.

Migrating from CentOS to Red Hat isn't that big of a deal from what I've heard, but it still has to be done for receiving paid support.

Migrating openSUSE to SLED/SLES I don't think is as stright-forward. Probably more similar to Fedora => Red Hat.

blackxored
June 24th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Ubuntu LTS is damn ready for enterprise, sure it is!

rookcifer
June 24th, 2009, 04:44 PM
What is wrong with Fedora or OpenSuse, both are based on their respective companies enterprise editions?

Neither Fedora or OpenSuse are enterprise OS's. You are thinking of RHEL and SLES.

Icehuck
June 24th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Ubuntu for enterprise? No, their six month release cycle tends to be very flakey and while Dapper was pretty good, hardy seems to fail. If it's aimed at businesses, then working on one machine but not others is not acceptable.

Suse Enterprise for me since it has a development cycle that lasts from 1 to 2 years. They also have 7 year paid support and about 5 years of updates.

If I can't have SuSE then I'll go with RHEL.

Oh and if you have SuSE or RHEL then you have a greater chance of finding qualified techs. Lets face it most corporations aren't looking for LPIC or Ubuntu certs, they want RHEL or SuSE certs. So the market more then likely has more of them available.

.Maleficus.
June 24th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Fedora is not an enterprise OS. You are thinking of Red Hat.
Quote from Fedora's Wiki:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or RHEL) is a commercial derivative of Fedora tailored to meet the requirements of enterprise customers. It is a commercial product from Red Hat which also sponsors Fedora as a community project. Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux but there are several other Derived distributions available too.
Considering how Red Hat's upstream code is sent from Fedora, I'd say it's pretty enterprise ready.

Dragonbite
June 24th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Quote from Fedora's Wiki:

Considering how Red Hat's upstream code is sent from Fedora, I'd say it's pretty enterprise ready.

RHEL, though, is from older, stabilized Fedora. I think RHEL 5 is from about Fedora 6 or 8. Fedora 9,10 and 11 is cutting their teeth for RHEL 6 or later I think.

Fedora tests things out and the best things that bubble up is what RHEL takes. That is in no means an endorsement of stability though.

.Maleficus.
June 24th, 2009, 05:13 PM
RHEL, though, is from older, stabilized Fedora. I think RHEL 5 is from about Fedora 6 or 8. Fedora 9,10 and 11 is cutting their teeth for RHEL 6 or later I think.

Fedora tests things out and the best things that bubble up is what RHEL takes. That is in no means an endorsement of stability though.
Wikipedia says that RHEL 5 is based on Fedora 6 and RHEL 6 will be based on Fedora 11. I'm not saying that Fedora 11 is the best choice for a large corporation (RHEL or CentOS are much better options) but it is certainly capable of handling it. Just like I wouldn't choice Jaunty for a server, if I had to use Ubuntu it would likely be 8.04.

Grenage
June 24th, 2009, 05:24 PM
My only query when it comes to enterprise Linux, is how do people manage things when compared to a windows enterprise?

For example:

Network authentication allowing any user to log onto any machine.
Centralized updates (such as MS WSUS services)

Dragonbite
June 24th, 2009, 05:45 PM
My only query when it comes to enterprise Linux, is how do people manage things when compared to a windows enterprise?

For example:

Network authentication allowing any user to log onto any machine.
Centralized updates (such as MS WSUS services)

Isn't OLAP or something like it good for authentication?

As for centralized updates, I think that's what Landscape (from Canoncial) is used for

Lanscape enables IT professionals to manage multiple systems as easily as they manage one. Deploy software updates, manage users, monitor performance, create reports and inventory hardware all from a central console.
more ... (http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape)

Icehuck
June 24th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Isn't OLAP or something like it good for authentication?


I think you mean LDAP :P

You can do LDAP on linux just fine. I think LDAP was done by Novell originally(not created, just used), or something very similar at least.

HappyFeet
June 24th, 2009, 07:43 PM
RHEL and Suse are both better choices because they offer a real paid support; they are true enterprise OSs.

FYI, ubuntu offers paid support also. ;)

ibutho
June 24th, 2009, 10:07 PM
My only query when it comes to enterprise Linux, is how do people manage things when compared to a windows enterprise?

For example:

Network authentication allowing any user to log onto any machine.
Centralized updates (such as MS WSUS services)

For centralised updates, you can create your own local repos and configure your machines to only get software and updates from the local repos. The exact way you'd do this depends on the distro. As for network authentication, you can use openLDAP.

Grenage
June 25th, 2009, 06:56 AM
Thanks for the clarification :)