Post inspired by this joke, which I actually found quite amusing: http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/14cgad/it_jokes_lets_hear_them/c7bym5a
First, a little background. I started leaning Linux on Mandrake, then went to Fedora, then Debian, then got a job working with a 100% FreeBSD environment. I started toying with Ubuntu around 2006, and I first put it into production in 2008.
Now at my current gig (mixed Windows & Linux environment), I went with Ubuntu server edition because I know I'll move on at some point, and I don't know for a fact that the company will invest in a replacement with commensurate Linux experience.
So, I figured that setting up a stable Ubuntu environment would be like throwing my successor a softball. "Here's everything, it works, there's a huge online community for support, and there's solid documentation with specifics in-house and general docs on the web."
Really, it does everything I need it to do & does it well. Web servers, DNS servers, DHCP, firewalls, email, mailing lists, print servers, file servers, automation, Puppet, virtualization hosts & guests, OpenLDAP single sign-on for everything that needs it in the environment, VoIP, replication, incremental on-site & off-site backups, and on down the list. The only issues I see these days are because an ISP's line goes down or a piece of hardware fails.
So, what's so bad about running Ubuntu LTS releases in a small production environment? Granted, Red Hat wins on pay support hands-down, and you definitely want that in a large environment. But, if that's not a factor, what's the rub?
I'm by no means a zealot, and I'm interested in hearing some legit criticisms of Ubuntu in the small production context. Cheers!
Edit: I think some of you nailed it: Concrete philosophy and perceptions about stability. Thanks to those of you that actually replied in-depth instead of giving empty analysis in the spirit of, "LeBron James can really befuddle a defense and take the game home when he turns it on!" I'm out, it's been fun!
[link][58 comments]