What Linux distros to businesses use?

[cw42]

I want to become familiar with more distros, and how they are used in businesses (currently toying with Ubuntu right now). So, which ones should I try out?

 

[xtknight]

RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and CentOS are used a lot in business. I'm not sure how prevalent Ubuntu is in the business sector.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Suse is big in Europe.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Maybe you can test out the RHEL 5 Beta 1 that just came out and try out some cool things like running xen virtualization. Most businesses would probably run Red Hat. Or if you want to try something stable there's always RHEL 4, CentOS, or SLES 10. Novell's Suse Enterprise Server/Desktop are catching on quite nicely. You could always try SLES 10 if you're running a server or just play around in SLED 10 if you want to use it for a desktop. Its so easy to use and administer imho.

 

[Brazen]

Redhat is the defacto standard in business. However, Redhat does not freely distribute installation binaries, only source code, so CentOS takes the source code, compiles it and puts it on ISOs. We use CentOS here at work, and anytime Redhat is a requirement or any instructions for Redhat work flawlessly with CentOS. The only caveat I've come across is the Dell Poweredge install CD (a cd you run before installing the OS on a Poweredge) will not accept a CentOS cd in place of a Redhat cd, so you just install it manually (just like you would on any other server).

Personally though, I want to start using Debian at work (and it's my call, so when I'm confortable with Debian, that is what we will start using). Debian is more community oriented than Redhat, and has a better track record for major version upgrades.

 

[InlineFive]

I'm curious, is this for server or desktop use?

 

[cw42]

server use.

 

[Nothinman]

As has been said RHEL is pretty much the standard in the US and SuSe in europe. But the latest release of Ubuntu has a server edition and extended support so I'm hoping they start getting some marketshare from RH because I really hate using RH/FC/CentOS.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
As has been said RHEL is pretty much the standard in the US and SuSe in europe. But the latest release of Ubuntu has a server edition and extended support so I'm hoping they start getting some marketshare from RH because I really hate using RH/FC/CentOS.

Ubuntu Server LTS (Long Term Support) is doing a pretty good job of stirring up buzz. I just don't think their priorities are in line with what enterprise customers need. Namely, a top priority of stability and reliability. Why go with Ubuntu when it is based on the development version of Debian? Though having a server edition and LTS is interesting and may be good enough for smaller shops who wouldn't have in-house expertise anyway and would need the Canonical services.

 

[Nothinman]

I just don't think their priorities are in line with what enterprise customers need. Namely, a top priority of stability and reliability.

How do you figure?

Hell I've been setting up my first kickstart with RHEL4 and I've already found a bug in Anaconda, if the FTP server set in the kickstart file is down the installer segfaults instead of returning an error, how's that for reliable? And RH makes it a huge PITA if not impossible to setup local repositories because they want you to use up2date, with Ubuntu you could setup your own repos easily and for free.

Why go with Ubuntu when it is based on the development version of Debian?

Because RH is around the same versions of software I'd bet. The only thing unstable about Debian sid is the packages themselves not the software that's packaged, there's more room allowed for breakage than normal so that transitions can be made.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

How do you figure?

It's just a fact of difference in philosophies between the two. Packages don't make it into Debian stable until a certain point for a reason, and you know that. Debian's takes great pains to ensure stability, reliability and non-"breakage." Ubuntu (I'm sure tries for all that, too, but) stays more cutting edge with the latest features, and at it's core is really designed to be top-notch for desktops, not servers.

Hell I've been setting up my first kickstart with RHEL4 and I've already found a bug in Anaconda

There's a known bug with Anaconda installing on Poweredge 1750 servers, too. Note that I said I would prefer DEBIAN, not Redhat, over an Ubuntu server, but I myself am not accustomed to Debian... yet, as I am with CentOS (Redhat).

And RH makes it a huge PITA if not impossible to setup local repositories because they want you to use up2date, with Ubuntu you could setup your own repos easily and for free.

True, another reason I use CentOS (uses yum by default, very easy to set up repos), and another reason I dislike Redhat's philosophy and would like to switch to Debian.

Why go with Ubuntu when it is based on the development version of Debian?

Because RH is around the same versions of software I'd bet.

First thing, I meant go with Debian stable instead of the Sid based Ubuntu, not Redhat, but just a quick check on my CentOS server and my Ubuntu laptop gives:

CentOS kernel: 2.6.9-42
Ubuntu kernel: 2.6.15-26

CentOS Apache: 2.0.52-28
Ubuntu Apache: 2.0.55-4

CentOS php: 4.3.9
Ubuntu php4 option: 4.4.2
Ubuntu php5 option: 5.1.2, but of course, you have the option there

I don't have a Debian stable computer to compare to, but I would imagine it would be more in line with CentOS/Redhat.

The only thing unstable about Debian sid is the packages themselves not the software that's packaged, there's more room allowed for breakage than normal so that transitions can be made.

Which is exactly why enterprise servers would want to run Debian stable as opposed to Ubuntu.

 

[minibubba]

as business servers, the biggest 2 are Novell's Suse and RedHat, if for no other reason than they can provide large scale support, for a price

 

[drag]

The way I look at it it's pretty much between Redhat, Suse, Debian, and maybe even Slackware.

It all realy depends on the attitudes of the management how much leyway they give the adminstrators. What sort of requirements they have and such.

For instance Redhat has the best support as far as third party applications and such go. If you require some sort of CAD software or specialized database application and those are from commercial companies and they certify specific Linux configurations those specific Linux configurations will include a Redhat operating system almost without exception.

Same thing with hardware certifications and driver certifications.

As far as Redhat themselves I've noticed that they tend to be at the for-front for enterprise level stuff. Things like clustering... They have their clustering suite with applications, kernels, file systems, and such for working with SANs and database clustering, high aviability clustering, load balancing clustering, and such. They have some interesting things such as a open source LDAP server and management suite that doesn't involve OpenLDAP. Things like that.

The downsides for Redhat is that they don't seem to be able to provide the same level of support that Unix users are accustom to. That is that with traditional Unix vendors like HP or IBM they have a lot of staff and a lot of support.. comparatively Redhat doesn't have nearly so much resources, although the price for it is comparative.

Now with Suse the best thing I figure they have going for them is that they are now owned by Novell. If you want to deploy Linux desktops and aren't sure about the best way to do it then Novell probably is your best bet. They have a LOT of enterprise Windows desktop experiance (compatatively) and are gaining good Linux desktop experiance. Scripts, network services, etc etc. Everything you need to gradually migrate to whatever you want.

Now for my personal preference it wouldn't be Ubuntu nessicarially, but Debian. I am of the opinion that as far as server systems go they should just be bare minimum. No gui, no nothing. Just the services that they need to be running and that's it. You should be able to remotely manage everything, even installations. You only need to touch the computer when something goes wrong.

For desktop systems I figure the best way is to go with just what people need to get their job done. It should be flexible enough that as the users grow and understand the system they could start to exploit it for their own purposes (like for example how people tend to 'abuse' excell spreadsheets or heavily use marcos.. these things are _potentionally_ good things as long as the software is designed to be flexible enough to handle it.). Also I want to be able to write a nice documentent on how to use Email or how to use the browser or find this share or that resources. I want to be able to print that out, give it to the users, file it under documentation and I want that to be valid not only next week, but 8 months later, and hopefully 2 years later. That users can file it away in some drawer and then look at it later and actually it still works. This is because I am lazy, but I figure Debian stable would be the way to most easily accomplish these goals.

Generally speaking boring is good.

But that's just me. Everybody is different with different goals and requirements. The way I figure it is that if you want to 'learn' linux the best way is to understand how it works, not nessicarially to understand how to use the configuration utilities and such.

 

[Ayah]

redhat and suse are the most common that I've seen

 

[Nothinman]

It's just a fact of difference in philosophies between the two. Packages don't make it into Debian stable until a certain point for a reason, and you know that. Debian's takes great pains to ensure stability, reliability and non-"breakage." Ubuntu (I'm sure tries for all that, too, but) stays more cutting edge with the latest features, and at it's core is really designed to be top-notch for desktops, not servers.

Packages don't make it into Debian stable at all unless they're security fixes. Packages sit in sid for ~2 weeks and as long as there's no serious bugs filed they're automatically moved into testing and once testing is frozen and deemed 'good enough' it's released as stable.

There's a known bug with Anaconda installing on Poweredge 1750 servers, too. Note that I said I would prefer DEBIAN, not Redhat, over an Ubuntu server, but I myself am not accustomed to Debian... yet, as I am with CentOS (Redhat).

Then there's at least 2 known bugs that have been essentially ignored. While trying to figure out why my kickstart was crashing I found references to that specific segfault happening as far back as a few years, how's that for reliability and stability?

I don't have a Debian stable computer to compare to, but I would imagine it would be more in line with CentOS/Redhat.

So? I don't get this, why does it matter if it's running kernel 2.6.9 or 2.6.15? The only reason they're still running 2.6.9 is because that's what was around when they released, RHEL5 whould be out soon and I bet it's running 2.6.15 or .16 just like Ubuntu. And that 2.6.9 kernel is going to be heavily patched because tons of bugs have been fixed upstream since then so it's not like it's still really 2.6.9 anyway.

Which is exactly why enterprise servers would want to run Debian stable as opposed to Ubuntu.

Not at all, once Ubuntu is released it's essentially the same as Debian stable only with newer packages. They have the same restrictions on package uploads so once it's released the package versions will remain essentially the same through the life of the release.