First thing yesterday morning: urgent IM message from Suresh Ramasubramanian (hoster of this mailing list):
Mailman is down, can you help?
OK, so we start investigating his box. He has upgraded Python2.4 to Python2.5, and applied a Mailman security patch package. However, whenever we try to access the page, the server barfs. On to server logs -- syntax error in one of the Mailman support files.
Right, I can understand an upgrade causing logical errors, but a SYNTAX ERROR!??!? Nah, I must be missing something, so I look all over the 2 upgrades. Switch back to Python2.4 from Python2.5, no joy. Recompile all the Mailman files from scratch, no joy. Recompile the Ubuntu Mailman package from source and reinstall it, no joy. Bang head against wall, no joy.
Finally, desperate, I start comparing Mailman files on Suresh' server against Mailman installed on other servers. While they are different versions of Mailman, I do notice one anomaly: where one file has:
mlist.subject_prefix = Utils.canonstr( val, mlist.preferred_language) <- *** Note this line *** elif property == 'info':
Suresh' server has:
mlist.subject_prefix = Utils.canonstr( elif property == 'info':
Saying, `no, no, it can't be!' I insert the missing line into the file on the broken machine, cross fingers, eyes, legs, etc and restart Mailman.
It works!
[Shift to today]
Ubuntu issues a security notice that says, in effect, ``We screwed up with the previous Mailman patch, so here's the latest and greatest version of Mailman, and this one really, Really, REALLY works! Believe us!''.
I don't believe them. In the past 6 months Ubuntu has issues 80 new security advisories. For those 80 advisories, they have issued no less than SEVEN regressions (a regression is a patch to fix a broken patch). A near-10% regression rate sends only one message to me -- we can't be bothered with doing any quality control before we release packages.
Before Ubuntu came onto the scene, I didn't even /know/ what a regression was. Today it's a common word in my lexicon, because of Ubuntu's pathetic testing and quality control process (or lack of process, more likely). An operating system vendor who issues a package with a syntax error (so that the package doesn't even start up, leave alone do something wrong), is a pure crap snake oil vendor in my book.
So, the question: will I trust Ubuntu on an Internet-connected system? Nah.
Will I trust Ubuntu on a server? Er, please excuse me while I finishing laughing hysterically!
Use Debian or CentOS or any of those reasonably tested other distributions for your boxes, and when someone asks you to use Ubuntu, in the immortal words of Fancy Raygun, ``Just Say No!''.
Regards,
-- Raju
So, the question: will I trust Ubuntu on an Internet-connected system? Nah.
Will I trust Ubuntu on a server? Er, please excuse me while I finishing laughing hysterically!
Use Debian or CentOS or any of those reasonably tested other distributions for your boxes, and when someone asks you to use Ubuntu, in the immortal words of Fancy Raygun, ``Just Say No!''.
Interesting. I had a similar rant on my blog last week and got a number of responses to the post, mostly asking me to remove the post.
http://sharninder.blogspot.com/2008/03/ubuntu-doesnt-work-for-me-yet-aka.htm...
While I do understand that I was using the alpha version of Ubuntu but the problems I have faced with it could have easily been detected during QA. I had the luxury of moving over the Debian since this system didn't have a lot of critical data and downtime wasn't an issue, but I can understand why you would want to move to debian/cent OS on your servers.
-- Sharninder
Sharninder wrote:
So, the question: will I trust Ubuntu on an Internet-connected system? Nah.
Will I trust Ubuntu on a server? Er, please excuse me while I finishing laughing hysterically!
Use Debian or CentOS or any of those reasonably tested other distributions for your boxes, and when someone asks you to use Ubuntu, in the immortal words of Fancy Raygun, ``Just Say No!''.
Interesting. I had a similar rant on my blog last week and got a number of responses to the post, mostly asking me to remove the post.
http://sharninder.blogspot.com/2008/03/ubuntu-doesnt-work-for-me-yet-aka.htm...
With due respect, Fedora/Ubuntu is the first step one takes to enter the world of GNU. I fail to understand why experts in GNU should use/try these OSs after advancing to higher levels of distros like Debian/RedHat.
I discovered Sidux in the March 2008 Chip DVD. It comes across as a nice distro for those who want the latest in Debian unstable (Sid) with some extra code added for better utility. And Sidux is a live CD too so easier to check out on unknown hardware.
I have used Ubuntu's many versions, from 5.10 onwards and they do whats expected of them. I hardly update them and if so, just after the installation, when the system is still fresh and not customized. Another way is to keep the net running so the latest packages get installed during the main installation itself. After that the door is closed for further updates. I never upgrade a distro. I prefer to clean install a newer version if necessary. Always wait a few months after release before trying the latest distro, so that latest packages have bug fixes. If you are a alpha/beta/unstable tester then expect problems and give bug feedback. If one is not sure of hardware compatibility, search the net for opinions/reports for the same, before installation.
I use Debian Etch-KDE ( single CD version ) customized with many add-ons for my desktop and Kubuntu 6.06/7.10 dual boot in my laptop. For my clients' desktops, I use K/Ubuntu as it is faster to install with pre-loaded utilities and before installation I can check out the system live for compatibility.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:30PM +0530, Rony wrote:
I have used Ubuntu's many versions, from 5.10 onwards and they do whats expected of them. I hardly update them and if so, just after the installation, when the system is still fresh and not customized. Another way is to keep the net running so the latest packages get installed during the main installation itself. After that the door is closed for further updates. I never upgrade a distro. I prefer to clean install a newer version if necessary. Always wait a few months after release before trying the latest distro, so that latest packages have bug fixes. If you are a alpha/beta/unstable tester then expect problems and give bug feedback. If one is not sure of hardware compatibility, search the net for opinions/reports for the same, before installation.
While making new installs may be your preference, Debian is designed for avoiding this, since all you need to do to jump from one stable version to another is an apt-get dist-upgrade. And if you do remain faithfully with stable, before an update to a new stable, a mere glance at potential issues before doing the apt-get dist-upgrade should suffice. Doing a reinstall sort of defeats this purpose, IMHO. Also, it is possible to dist-upgrade using CDs as well, provided you have all the CDs necessary for the dist-upgrade of all packages on your machine.
Kumar
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kumar Appaiah akumar@ee.iitm.ac.in wrote:
While making new installs may be your preference, Debian is designed for avoiding this, since all you need to do to jump from one stable version to another is an apt-get dist-upgrade. And if you do remain faithfully with stable, before an update to a new stable, a mere glance at potential issues before doing the apt-get dist-upgrade should suffice. Doing a reinstall sort of defeats this purpose, IMHO. Also, it is possible to dist-upgrade using CDs as well, provided you have all the CDs necessary for the dist-upgrade of all packages on your machine.
Even newbie like me can live with Debian!
My home machine is running Debian from October 2005 without reinstalling any new distro on it. It is Sid now and works fine for me (TM).
On Sunday 16 Mar 2008 10:25:22 Raj Mathur wrote:
Before Ubuntu came onto the scene, I didn't even /know/ what a regression was. Today it's a common word in my lexicon, because of Ubuntu's pathetic testing and quality control process (or lack of process, more likely). An operating system vendor who issues a package with a syntax error (so that the package doesn't even start up, leave alone do something wrong), is a pure crap snake oil vendor in my book.
So, the question: will I trust Ubuntu on an Internet-connected system? Nah.
Will I trust Ubuntu on a server? Er, please excuse me while I finishing laughing hysterically!
Use Debian or CentOS or any of those reasonably tested other distributions for your boxes, and when someone asks you to use Ubuntu, in the immortal words of Fancy Raygun, ``Just Say No!''.
/me concurs.
I go exclusively with Debian and CentOS on servers.
On 16-Mar-08, at 10:25 AM, Raj Mathur wrote:
First thing yesterday morning: urgent IM message from Suresh Ramasubramanian (hoster of this mailing list):
he hosts this list?
-
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Kumar Appaiah -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Sharninder