Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business IT

Canonical Chases Deal to Ship Ubuntu Server OS 151

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the customer-feedback-at-work dept.
Kurtz'sKompund writes "Canonical, the company that supports Ubuntu Linux, is trying to work out a deal with hardware vendors such as Dell to make Ubuntu available pre-installed on servers. 'Canonical, despite obviously supporting such a deal, had little to do with Dell's decision. Dell said it was merited by customer demand. Likewise, the decision of whether Ubuntu Server will ship pre-installed will be determined the same way.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canonical Chases Deal to Ship Ubuntu Server OS

Comments Filter:
  • Servers...WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by j35ter (895427) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @05:38PM (#20932837)
    AFAIK Ubuntu was developed for the *desktop& market...did I miss sth?
  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @05:41PM (#20932875)
    If it comes with an install CD with all of the necessary drivers included ... awesome!

    Even with imaging WinXP, you'll need the drivers. You'll have to find the drivers. Somewhere. And build your image with them.
  • by SpiritGod21 (884402) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @05:42PM (#20932885) Homepage
    It's fantastic to see such purported demand for Ubuntu, but I have trouble envisioning the conversion of our servers to their distro. The article itself reports that the server product is in its early days and that there are gaps in its functionality, and the biggest gap seems to be in support. I seriously doubt that Dell is going to pick up the bill for enterprise-level 24x7 support, and the offerings from Canonical seem to be local individuals who put their name on Ubuntu's website, so there's little guarantee regarding their expertise or availability.

    I just can't help but worry that Canonical is overextending themselves (even if it is in reaction to Dell asking them to do so), and that the distro will eventually cave once bad PR builds up from a few high-profile failures at the enterprise/corporation level. Those in the FOSS community might not care about bad corporate PR, but it would certainly set Linux back quite a bit adoption-wise to have its golden front-runner made to look extremely foolish.
  • Re:Why Ubuntu? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @05:56PM (#20933057) Journal

    Am I not seeing some advantage that a pre-installed Ubuntu would bring? Maybe compatibility with newer hardware.
    I think you answered your own question. How many hours are spent researching Linux compatibility before purchasing new computers? Buying a system with Ubuntu pre-installed gives one a guarantee that the hardware as a basic level of support in that distro.

    Also, perhaps the PHBs who are used to buying computers with Windows pre-installed will feel more comfortable about buying (or rather, approving the purchase of) a server if the OS is pre-installed.
  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:01PM (#20933107)
    Let's look at the possible scenarios that lead to "failure".

    #1. Hardware dies. Only an idiot would blame this on Canonical/Ubuntu. If it's under warranty, Dell should be able to replace it.

    #2. Software corruption. This would be Canonical's/Ubuntu's fault. But I've run their stuff for years without any problems. Why would there be problems now?

    #3. Driver problem. Well, this is why you have these "partnerships" so the software vendor can work with the hardware vendor to solve these problems BEFORE you purchase their products.

    #4. Stupid admin problem. Yeah, like there's anything Canonical or Dell can do to prevent that.

    So, the only real potential problem looks like the exact thing that such a partnership would be designed to resolve. I'm not seeing the problem here.
  • Re:Why Ubuntu? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:01PM (#20933119)
    I'm gonna get modded down to hell, but I'm going to say this anyhow:

    Ubuntu Server is for novice system admins that just have to have all the newest bells and whistles. I'm in the group as far as my personal projects go. I would not consider installing it at work, though, even an LTS. (We -are- thinking about Gentoo, but that's headed by someone who uses it a lot already. We currently have RedHat.)

    I can't count the number of times at work I've said 'Man, if we had Ubuntu server, upgrading that would be SO easy.' But then I stop and think 'Yeah, and what would the frequent updates break?' We've had -planned- updates to critical components go horribly wrong before, and are even using a very old version of 1 library because we had issues with a newer version, and the sysadmin (at the time) was afraid to mess with it any more. When we upgrade next, it'll be tons of fun finding out what works and what doesn't, I'm sure.
  • Re:Why Ubuntu? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:14PM (#20933277)
    If you're investigating server software, don't forget to check out the BSDs.
  • Re:Why Ubuntu? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shados (741919) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:17PM (#20933311)
    I don't disagree with you, but one has to realise that servers are not all the big mission critical machines in datacenters we tend to picture them as. There are probably as many "non-mission-critical" servers as there are the others, and for those, a "Server for Dummy" install probably is cost effective in the long run.

    Case in point: the company I work for offers a relatively advanced web solution. The software doesn't actually deal with mission critical data, it is used for projections and on the fly analytic operations, on a user per user basis. So each user has a copy of the data and basically mess with it the way they bloody want until they get an acceptable result, print a report, then go to their primary system (which isn't by us, and is totally independant in every ways, shape and form) and perform mission critical operations THERE.

    For our servers, we can toss the app on anything, passwords can be in plain text (well, could if users didn't reuse passwords all over, which isn't the case so I guess they can't!), the machine can be tossed and kicked around, it doesn't really matter if the system's down for a day, or a week, as long as it comes back and it "works".

    This is actually an incredibly common scenario, and more and more as a lot of software is moved to simple web apps (because of the Web 2.0 overhype) and other such things, especially since hardware is so cheap (I've seen servers running cache engines made with less than 300 lines of code, including comments, in a farm... hardly mission critical either), so there's IS a pretty high demand for "dumb-friendly" servers that don't even require the sysadmin intervention when they screw up.

    In such cases, something like Ubuntu Server probably fits the bill amazingly nicely. If the machine screws up BAD, you call the sysadmin...but the rest of the time, let said professional handle the important stuff, and have the junior manage the non-critical, novice friendly environments. Saves time and money for everyone.
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:41PM (#20933579)
    I just can't help but worry that Canonical is overextending themselves (even if it is in reaction to Dell asking them to do so), and that the distro will eventually cave once bad PR builds up from a few high-profile failures at the enterprise/corporation level. Those in the FOSS community might not care about bad corporate PR, but it would certainly set Linux back quite a bit adoption-wise to have its golden front-runner made to look extremely foolish.

    The big money is with support for servers, not desktops. And there-in lies the problem. Canonical are just looking for the gold.

    It's a shame since Ubuntu is the opposite of most other distros out there, and hence makes poor server and good desktop. Greed may ruin the distro on both server and desktop markets, and with it, all recent hopes of take-up of Linux installs on the desktop.
  • by ericrost (1049312) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @06:53PM (#20933705) Homepage Journal
    Good straw man, I actually read the link and that still has nothing to do with Canonical vs RedHat. That would be AMD's fault for sending stupid APIC messages.
  • Re:Why Ubuntu? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by STFS (671004) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @09:21PM (#20934961) Homepage
    One potential advantage would be the ability to purchase support [ubuntu.com] from the company that "makes" the distribution like you can with RedHat. I'm sure there are companies that provide similar services for Debian but maybe someone would be more at ease to deal directly with the people who actually make the distro.

    I don't know what the "Server Support package" includes but it sounds fancy.

  • by kcbanner (929309) * on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @09:38PM (#20935101) Homepage Journal
    Well, there *are* more commands that have to be run in fdisk. Its more work in that regard, so it *is* still more work :P
  • by Sillygates (967271) on Wednesday October 10, 2007 @09:39PM (#20935107) Homepage Journal

    f it comes with an install CD with all of the necessary drivers included ... awesome!
    Even with imaging WinXP, you'll need the drivers. You'll have to find the drivers. Somewhere. And build your image with them.


    This isn't WinXP here. The type of hardware that ends up in server boxes usually has complete support in any recent kernel release.
    And, companies like RedHat make sure all the kernel modules for HBA cards are compiled too.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...