Best Linux distro for a server?

[Nothinman]

APT isn't the key reason to use Debian (although with >11K packages in unstable it's a damn good one), the main reason is the quality of the packages. Even the unstable/testing trees are usable on a day to day basis (with the occasional breakage which is usually fixed in a day or so at the longest). Debian has strict guidelines that all packages must adhere to and you can't get that installing RPMs from random sources across the net, sure you can get a similar (although it still seems less polished compared to Debian to me) quality by only using RH official packages but then you limit yourself quite a bit.

The entire system is what makes Debian great, not just the package management.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
APT isn't the key reason to use Debian (although with >11K packages in unstable it's a damn good one), the main reason is the quality of the packages. Even the unstable/testing trees are usable on a day to day basis (with the occasional breakage which is usually fixed in a day or so at the longest). Debian has strict guidelines that all packages must adhere to and you can't get that installing RPMs from random sources across the net, sure you can get a similar (although it still seems less polished compared to Debian to me) quality by only using RH official packages but then you limit yourself quite a bit.

The entire system is what makes Debian great, not just the package management.

That's what I meant by "at that point, why even use redhat?". When you get to the point of trying to make a minimal system (or even just start from one) and you're not interested in having a nice preconfigured desktop (which redhat is better at than debian), then the many benefits of debian outweigh anything redhat can do for you (only possible exception i can think of is kudzu, but IIRC you can even install that in debian if you want ).

 

[N11]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: N11

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: N11

Originally posted by: Workin'
Debian (stable or testing). Set it up in an hour. Run apt-get every few days. That's it. You get only what you need and no more. Not an extra boatload of shiet installed like Red Hat.

I'll never understand this mentality.

Seems reasonable to me, what don't you agree with?

I don't agree that you can't customize a red hat installation and selectively determine what is or is not installed.

Can you manage a 90MB install with redhat?

And even if so, to get the useability of debian you need apt-rpm, and at that point, why even use redhat? Redhat and debian are very different distros for very different crowds.

I would recommend redhat to this user because it has far greater use, the support community is larger, the distribution is commercially tested and has hardware support for a greater amount of hardware. The distribution is more current and the red hat network services will hold your hand with system updates if you have no idea what you are doing (or don't have time to think about it.). The distribution is more widely accepted and if you ever have intent on acquiring linux related skills to help you in the job market, it is branded the corporate choice as of now.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I would recommend redhat to this user because it has far greater use,

I agree

the support community is larger,

VERY questionable. Even if the redhat community is bigger than the debian community, it probably doesn't really matter because they are both freaking huge.

the distribution is commercially tested

Testing is testing, who cares if it's by a company or by people not making money?

and has hardware support for a greater amount of hardware.

Does redhat include drivers that other distros don't? Even if so, I can't imagine there are very many (feel free to inform me )

The distribution is more current

True true..

and the red hat network services will hold your hand with system updates if you have no idea what you are doing (or don't have time to think about it.).

A nice upside for a newbie, no doubt.

The distribution is more widely accepted and if you ever have intent on acquiring linux related skills to help you in the job market, it is branded the corporate choice as of now.

Can't argue with that either. The fact is, I don't dislike redhat that much, as I figure I will be acquainting myself with it at one point or another for job purposes (or maybe not...), but I think you and I can agree that both redhat and debian have very different pros/cons, and very different userbases. I guess the mentality that you were saying you didn't understand was that which recommends a more advanced (in skill/learning requirements) OS to a newbie?

 

[Nothinman]

the distribution is commercially tested


Testing is testing, who cares if it's by a company or by people not making money?

Also, something people don't realize or know about is that HP standardized on Debian as their internal Linux distro of choice, all their internal development happens on Debian but they support RedHat externally because it's the commercially accepted Linux. I would say in that respect Debian gets a lot of commercial Q&A.

I'm not a big RH fan, I find it more of a PITA to maintain than Debian even with the RH network. But in March I'll probably be going to classes which will end with me getting my RHCE because work'll be paying for it, 99% of any Linux related skills are transferable from distro to distro so there's no reason not to.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Also, something people don't realize or know about is that HP standardized on Debian as their internal Linux distro of choice, all their internal development happens on Debian but they support RedHat externally because it's the commercially accepted Linux. I would say in that respect Debian gets a lot of commercial Q&A.

That's cool, it seems that the linux world is heading towards sort of a dual-standard of redhat and debian, instead of just redhat being "the" distro. One from corporate america, and one that's "for us by us". At this point, I think it would actually make some sense for redhat to somewhat start anew, using debian as a base and then adding/changing some things here and there to make it their own, basically doing what all of those other modify-debian-to-make-it-newbie-friendly distros have done, but with the redhat name and support behind it. I wonder why they *wouldn't* do that... Pride? I don't know what else it could be, but pride doesn't seem likely, as companies tend to just do whatever is most lucrative..

 

[N11]

Can't argue with that either. The fact is, I don't dislike redhat that much, as I figure I will be acquainting myself with it at one point or another for job purposes (or maybe not...), but I think you and I can agree that both redhat and debian have very different pros/cons, and very different userbases. I guess the mentality that you were saying you didn't understand was that which recommends a more advanced (in skill/learning requirements) OS to a newbie?

Sometimes I still consider myself an extreme newbie. Debian's installed on a partition here I just don't get to using it. I've gotten to a point where I like my things to just work, with minimal issues, between needing to get 1000 lines of working code down in an evening or configuring/admining network services endlessly, I need a high end personal system that works which I can trust -- the 20 minutes I put into Debian again the other day with this new vid card/monitor all I can see is a lack of graphics support by default. Maybe if I have time something cool will happen and I'll get X working, or maybe I won't.

This is where most of my bias originates.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: N11

Can't argue with that either. The fact is, I don't dislike redhat that much, as I figure I will be acquainting myself with it at one point or another for job purposes (or maybe not...), but I think you and I can agree that both redhat and debian have very different pros/cons, and very different userbases. I guess the mentality that you were saying you didn't understand was that which recommends a more advanced (in skill/learning requirements) OS to a newbie?

Sometimes I still consider myself an extreme newbie. Debian's installed on a partition here I just don't get to using it. I've gotten to a point where I like my things to just work, with minimal issues, between needing to get 1000 lines of working code down in an evening or configuring/admining network services endlessly, I need a high end personal system that works which I can trust -- the 20 minutes I put into Debian again the other day with this new vid card/monitor all I can see is a lack of graphics support by default. Maybe if I have time something cool will happen and I'll get X working, or maybe I won't.

This is where most of my bias originates.

I was such a mess when I started using debian, I had a broken X config for WEEKS! Now it seems like nothing... xf86cfg is your friend

 

[N11]

I'm not sure how much time I want to put into it -- I ran through the config after a re-install, didn't see anything close to a radeon 9500 (not even sure I saw an 8500), and if I'm correct it is tossing in XFree 4.1? I'm pretty sure 4.2 and beyond handle the newer ATI cards, but I know that with this 9500 and redhat, I had an epic battle of napoleonic proportions until I went straight for the ATI driver. (not understanding graphics is proving to be a serious issue for me)

Talking about this I think I'm going to boot up later tonight and try to get it.

Would I be able to get anything beyond 640x480 with that vesa driver?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: N11
I'm not sure how much time I want to put into it -- I ran through the config after a re-install, didn't see anything close to a radeon 9500 (not even sure I saw an 8500), and if I'm correct it is tossing in XFree 4.1? I'm pretty sure 4.2 and beyond handle the newer ATI cards, but I know that with this 9500 and redhat, I had an epic battle of napoleonic proportions until I went straight for the ATI driver. (not understanding graphics is proving to be a serious issue for me)

Talking about this I think I'm going to boot up later tonight and try to get it.

Would I be able to get anything beyond 640x480 with that vesa driver?

I am not really sure, but that's a pretty new card, so it's likely you are going to have issues at the least. That's one upside to being a non-gamer, you can buy the old, cheap, compatible video cards and stuff works great

If you upgrade to sarge, you will have X 4.2, and perhaps a working X config.

 

[N11]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: N11
I'm not sure how much time I want to put into it -- I ran through the config after a re-install, didn't see anything close to a radeon 9500 (not even sure I saw an 8500), and if I'm correct it is tossing in XFree 4.1? I'm pretty sure 4.2 and beyond handle the newer ATI cards, but I know that with this 9500 and redhat, I had an epic battle of napoleonic proportions until I went straight for the ATI driver. (not understanding graphics is proving to be a serious issue for me)

Talking about this I think I'm going to boot up later tonight and try to get it.

Would I be able to get anything beyond 640x480 with that vesa driver?

I am not really sure, but that's a pretty new card, so it's likely you are going to have issues at the least. That's one upside to being a non-gamer, you can buy the old, cheap, compatible video cards and stuff works great

If you upgrade to sarge, you will have X 4.2, and perhaps a working X config.

One thing positive I have to say about Debian given my limited experience, is that the very first time I tried installing it, it was very straightforward and logical, to the point of easy.

 

[n0cmonkey]

FreeBSD gets corporate support from the many companies that currently use it (yahoo! is one such company, off the top of my head).

NetBSD has wasabi, and Im sure there are other companies using it internally a bit.

OpenBSD is used throughout the US government and in many universities.

Linux aint the only OS with backing

 

[marat]

Originally posted by: N11
I'm not sure how much time I want to put into it -- I ran through the config after a re-install, didn't see anything close to a radeon 9500 (not even sure I saw an 8500), and if I'm correct it is tossing in XFree 4.1? I'm pretty sure 4.2 and beyond handle the newer ATI cards, but I know that with this 9500 and redhat, I had an epic battle of napoleonic proportions until I went straight for the ATI driver. (not understanding graphics is proving to be a serious issue for me)

Talking about this I think I'm going to boot up later tonight and try to get it.

Would I be able to get anything beyond 640x480 with that vesa driver?

Try Xandros. It is commercially supported distro based on Debian. It has 2.4.19 kernel and latest drivers in it. And you can apt-get from debian and xandros

 

[Workin']

Originally posted by: N11

Originally posted by: Workin'
Debian (stable or testing). Set it up in an hour. Run apt-get every few days. That's it. You get only what you need and no more. Not an extra boatload of shiet installed like Red Hat.

I'll never understand this mentality.

Nevermind. It's been explained. We're talking server, not desktop. Different worlds.

 

[Workin']

My iBook has been up for 74 days straight. Do I get a cookie?

I think you get a cookie every time you visit this site

 

[robisc]

Thanks for all the replies, I think I am going to try Redhat on this box. I have never really been a fan of RH as a desktop OS but as I said it is to be a server OS, Debian I haven't tried in a while, the last time I tried the installer was awful IMO, maybe it's better now I don't know but I guess what really turns me away from Debian is the fact that that it does seem a little out of date compared to the other distros, with that said I am not looking for all the fluff and bloat of most of the new desktop OSes but I do tend to want the latest and greatest in an OS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: robisc
Thanks for all the replies, I think I am going to try Redhat on this box. I have never really been a fan of RH as a desktop OS but as I said it is to be a server OS, Debian I haven't tried in a while, the last time I tried the installer was awful IMO, maybe it's better now I don't know but I guess what really turns me away from Debian is the fact that that it does seem a little out of date compared to the other distros, with that said I am not looking for all the fluff and bloat of most of the new desktop OSes but I do tend to want the latest and greatest in an OS.

Not to continue the Debian vs. RedHat debate but...

The installer is the least important part of an OS install. You should see it once per install, and maybe during upgrades. Thats it. I see the OpenBSD installer a couple of times every 6 months, typically once per machine I own per year (I dont update all machines with the newest releases typically). So, even though its not as fluffy happy buttercups as some other installers, but its simple and to the point.

Debian is a little behind the bleeding edge. Which is not a bad thing on a server. Bleeding edge is many times a little less stable than the release or two previous. Not always, but many times. So, sitting a release or two behind the curve is not always a bad thing, as long as that software is still supported by someone.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian's installer is great, it's simple and to the point and easy to work around for custom jobs. It was dead easy for me to add XFS support to it myself. And anyway, you only need to see it once, even upgrades can be done live.

And Debian behing behind the bleeding edge is what makes it a great server, it's extremely stable and you always know what you're getting. There's no chance of them dropping new software in the 'stable' tree that adds/removes features and can potentially break your setup, all you get is stable, known working software and security fixes. Once in awhile you need the newer versions (like I noticed that Cyrus 2.1.x has been packaged in unstable recently which is supposedly a huge improvement over the 1.2.x or whatever older version) but even then you can use apt pinning to install software from other trees (depending on the software dependencies, it may pull in so many other packages that you'd be better off upgrading to the other tree).

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: marat

Originally posted by: N11
I'm not sure how much time I want to put into it -- I ran through the config after a re-install, didn't see anything close to a radeon 9500 (not even sure I saw an 8500), and if I'm correct it is tossing in XFree 4.1? I'm pretty sure 4.2 and beyond handle the newer ATI cards, but I know that with this 9500 and redhat, I had an epic battle of napoleonic proportions until I went straight for the ATI driver. (not understanding graphics is proving to be a serious issue for me)

Talking about this I think I'm going to boot up later tonight and try to get it.

Would I be able to get anything beyond 640x480 with that vesa driver?

Try Xandros. It is commercially supported distro based on Debian. It has 2.4.19 kernel and latest drivers in it. And you can apt-get from debian and xandros

Knoppix also is a Debian base distro, which in my book by far the best due to its extreamly fast & smooth auto hardware detection that can be install on to your hdd or simply run from CD (less than 2 min to boot with CD boot with KDE 3.0).