Linux distro webserver only?

[beefjerky911]

I know there's some Linux distros that is dedicated to being a firewall with a gui interface, is there such a distro that I can install that will only function as a apache/mysql server? I know most distros package apache but I don't want to mess with the configuring and getting the packages for mysql and a web management interface. I just want something to work out of the box with minimal configuring.

 

[OSX]

I think most of the server-oriented distros come with Apache/MySQL/etc installed.

 

[aceO07]

I think Slax has a live cd version for server usage. I haven't had much of a chance to try it out, but maybe it'll work for you.

http://www.slax.org/download.php

 

[drag]

If you want something that is _dead_ easy then check out Vmware's 'virtual appliance marketplace'.
http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/

You install Vmware player (for either Linux or Windows), download a virtual appliance and run it. Viola, instance LAMP server (or whatever the hell you want, somebody will have a image for it).

It's quite the nice way for people to package server OSes as commercial products nowadays. No install needed, you just boot it up.

Otherwise I like Debian. There will always be some configuration done for generic OSes. You need to setup users and passwords and such. There are things like phpmyadmin to use if you want to, just make sure that they are not internet accessable (or any other insecure network for that matter) (openvpn is nice)

 

[BurnItDwn]

Pretty much every distro out there has precompiled binaries for Apache, Mysql, and Php.

I'm not aware of any "LAMP only" minidistros.

You're best bet is a distro that is easy and quick to patch/update with a large package repository.
My personal Favorite, Slackware, would be a bad choice for you.

Perhaps Debian or Suse would fit the bill for your needs ...

 

[beefjerky911]

Thanks all, LAMP was the word i was looking for. Think I will try Ubuntu server with LAMP.

 

[Slackware]

Slackware

Ubuntu is nice for all their community help but server wise, not really.

Second choice would be CentOs

Tird choice would be OpenSuSE

Fourth choice would be Fedora

Fifth choice would be Debian

Actually Debian could be the second choice if you are knowledgable enough.

 

[Nothinman]

Ubuntu is nice for all their community help but server wise, not really.

BS, their LTS release is pretty much the same thing as Debian with commercial support from Canonical if you want it.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Ubuntu is nice for all their community help but server wise, not really.

BS, their LTS release is pretty much the same thing as Debian with commercial support from Canonical if you want it.

Well, tht LTS release have been so bug filled from updates that i wouldn't even run it online.

You got xhost+ running by default, if i email the sucker i could brute force my way in, it'd take an hour or maybe a day but i would enter.

Be assured that Ubuntu has NO firewall running what so ever, using it as a first abuse victim for a server... maybe, actually using it for a server, well, after you set it up like a slack distro, it will be ok.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, tht LTS release have been so bug filled from updates that i wouldn't even run it online.

Oh please, point me to some of these extremely problematic bugs.

You got xhost+ running by default, if i email the sucker i could brute force my way in, it'd take an hour or maybe a day but i would enter.

Hardly, I just did a test install from the LTS server and X isn't even installed so xhost+ can't be enabled by default and there's no MUA or MTA installed so your email wouldn't go anywhere either. Have you even looked at the software?

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Well, tht LTS release have been so bug filled from updates that i wouldn't even run it online.

Oh please, point me to some of these extremely problematic bugs.

You got xhost+ running by default, if i email the sucker i could brute force my way in, it'd take an hour or maybe a day but i would enter.

Hardly, I just did a test install from the LTS server and X isn't even installed so xhost+ can't be enabled by default and there's no MUA or MTA installed so your email wouldn't go anywhere either. Have you even looked at the software?

Check the launchpad.

It's also an opinion, not dug in stone truth, personal preference would be gNewSense, Debian or Slackware, preferably Slackware for obvious reasons.

 

[Nothinman]

Opinion? You specifically said "xhost+ running by default" and that sounds more like the statement of a fact than an opinion.

Please, if you're going to throw aroun wild accusations be ready to prove them.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Well, tht LTS release have been so bug filled from updates that i wouldn't even run it online.

Oh please, point me to some of these extremely problematic bugs.

You got xhost+ running by default, if i email the sucker i could brute force my way in, it'd take an hour or maybe a day but i would enter.

Hardly, I just did a test install from the LTS server and X isn't even installed so xhost+ can't be enabled by default and there's no MUA or MTA installed so your email wouldn't go anywhere either. Have you even looked at the software?

I have an Ubuntu CD in front of me, do i really have to post the contents?

 

[Nothinman]

You may have the CD but you obviously haven't used it. I just did the install in VMWare, the contents of the CD aren't important since you're the one saying there's things installed and enabled by default that really aren't.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
You may have the CD but you obviously haven't used it. I just did the install in VMWare, the contents of the CD aren't important since you're the one saying there's things installed and enabled by default that really aren't.

Look, you just claimed that X was not installed by default, that is WRONG, and check out the services running.

Look, i said what i wanted to say, i have no interest in anything else, ok?

Groet.

 

[Nothinman]

Look, you just claimed that X was not installed by default, that is WRONG, and check out the services running.

Nope, I just did the installation myself and X isn't installed by default and the only thing listening on the network is the dhcp client. I just looked on an Edgy VM that I have too and X access controls are enabled so I have no idea what installation you're looking at.

Look, i said what i wanted to say, i have no interest in anything else, ok?

You have no interest in the truth?

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Look, you just claimed that X was not installed by default, that is WRONG, and check out the services running.

Nope, I just did the installation myself and X isn't installed by default and the only thing listening on the network is the dhcp client. I just looked on an Edgy VM that I have too and X access controls are enabled so I have no idea what installation you're looking at.

Look, i said what i wanted to say, i have no interest in anything else, ok?

You have no interest in the truth?

It seems kind of obvouius that you are going to try to keep trying to entice me.

You just picked up an Dapper CD (remember, original LTS is what we're discussing, nothing else) and you followed the normal install procedure and it did not install X?

Now, either it didn't work right on your machine or you did something wrong because it is built to install X.

Unless you have downloaded an UNofficial version? one you cannot get via order?

Well of course you have.

And no one cares but you because you thought you were being oh so clever.

Just understand that you are the only one who thought so.

I'm going off i have two days more with a turbocharged Hayabusa, can't stay locked to the computer to listen to your excuses all the time.

 

[drag]

He probably did a 'server' install.
http://ubuntu-releases.cs.umn.edu//6.06/

The server install CD allows you to install Ubuntu permanently on a computer for use as a server. It will not install a graphical user interface.

Ubuntu now offers 2 installation images for it's releases. They have the desktop 'live cdrom' for desktop evaluation and install and then a 'alternate' installation cdrom for doing things like server installs, installs on lower resource computers, and generating 'OEM' installs and such things.

Google is good. Experiance is nice also.

 

[Nothinman]

You just picked up an Dapper CD (remember, original LTS is what we're discussing, nothing else) and you followed the normal install procedure and it did not install X?

No, I picked up the LTS server disc because we're talking about servers here.

I'm going off i have two days more with a turbocharged Hayabusa, can't stay locked to the computer to listen to your excuses all the time.

Good, maybe when you get back you'll be more open to the truth.

 

[Nothinman]

And just for completeness I just installed the Dapper desktop disc and obviously X is installed but xhost is restricted by default and the only thing listening on the network is still the dhcp client.

 

[Sunner]

I'd say this constitutes a fair amount of, what would in internet lingo be called, ownage.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: Sunner
I'd say this constitutes a fair amount of, what would in internet lingo be called, ownage.

well, i could kind of see it coming. the guys name is slackware afterall.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: rmrf

Originally posted by: Sunner
I'd say this constitutes a fair amount of, what would in internet lingo be called, ownage.

well, i could kind of see it coming. the guys name is slackware afterall.

Hey now, Slackware is an EXCELLENT distro!
That being said, it isn't perfect ... nor is any operating system.
/me goes back to work

 

[drag]

Yes slackware sufficiently kicks-ass.

And although I prefer Debian both Slackware and Ubuntu are good enough in their own ways that either OS would make a great server system as long as you understand each other's limitations and have realistic expectations.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Ubuntu is nice for all their community help but server wise, not really.

BS, their LTS release is pretty much the same thing as Debian with commercial support from Canonical if you want it.

That's why I go with Ubuntu on _most_ of our servers here at work. The only thing I've run into any bugs with is Samba, which I have no problems with since (yesterday) switching to a Debian Etch Samba server.

Personally, I don't think I will ever use the Conanical tech support, so I might start using Etch more once it's released to Stable.