Ubuntu Server does indeed work as well as does any other Server based
Linux. However, the post I responded to said Ubuntu _not_ Ubuntu Server.
Just as Fedora != RHEL, Ubuntu != Ubuntu Server.

I was specifically commenting on the practice of using Desktop OS's for
server needs (which is more prevalent than one would like to think). Many
people don't or don't want to realize/recognize that there are differences
in the way that a distro/OS is built depending on how it is intended to be
used.

Many performance complaints on all of the major OS's can be attributed to
using the wrong version of the OS for the wrong job. Desktop Linux vs
Server Linux, MacOSX vs MacOSX Server, Windows vs Windows Server. Even
VAX/VMS had different versions (VAXstation vs BigVAX). The *BSDs don't
tend to be as version visible so I didn't use them in this example... no
slight intended.

Kendall
--

>> I have to agree. Ubuntu is a fine end-user distribution, but RHEL
> is a
>> much more capable Server Distribution.
>>
>
> ubuntu server edition rocks
> http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/serveredition
> on our servers (at http://reea.net)
> we also use debian stable on some of them
>
> Nice thing about ubuntu server is long term support and easy
> upgrade from one version to the next
> Also for big iron (64G of ram , 32 cpu ...) there is big iron kernel
> so please don't compare ubuntu desktop with ubuntu server edition
> We also use centos instead of redhat wherever that is needed
> ps: you can test all of them in an vmware machine (with vmware
> server) or if you like :xen , qemu , virtualbox
>
>
>