What Linux server distro?

[robisc]

What do you guys recommend for an easy to use, no fluff Linux distro, this will be used as a server OS, on a Windows and Mac network, this server will pretty much only be used as a file server. I use SuSE and Mandrake as desktop OS distros, but need opinions on an easy to use server distro, I am building a new machine to take place of my Windows 2K server and want to move all my data to a Linux machine.

 

[TonyRic]

pretty much any of them will work fine. You are already familiar with SuSE and Mandrake, so why not use one of those? They all come with the server software anyway.

 

[drag]

You could try out debian stable and see how that works out. Just upgrade the kernel to a newer one (debian stabe uses 2.2 kernels by default).

Otherwise SuSe, Debian unstable/testing, or Fedora is as good as anything else.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Debian.

I wonder how many posts of Nothinman's have been this one word...

 

[Nothinman]

Way too many...

 

[Sunner]

I agree with Nothinman.
By the way, when you boot a Debian Woody CD, you can start with a 2.4 kernel by just typing "bf24" rather than just pressing enter.

 

[robisc]

Maybe I will try Debian agian, but I have never had any luck installing any version of Debian in the past, maybe this time it will be different.

 

[Nothinman]

By the way, when you boot a Debian Woody CD, you can start with a 2.4 kernel by just typing "bf24" rather than just pressing enter.

Or if you want you can try the new installer images for sarge, atleast on x86 they work well enough that I know several people that installed sarge or sid from them.

 

[yelo333]

I would suggest that the YaST tool in SuSE would make SuSE an excellent choice if you don't want to learn anything. if you DO want to learn something, then go for slackware, as it's hands-down(except for that other slack-based distro vector) the fastest linux distro I've found yet.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: yelo333
I would suggest that the YaST tool in SuSE would make SuSE an excellent choice if you don't want to learn anything. if you DO want to learn something, then go for slackware, as it's hands-down(except for that other slack-based distro vector) the fastest linux distro I've found yet.

If you're not willing to learn something, you shouldn't run a server, period.

 

[groovin]

i am deploying gentoo across my organization to replace our aging RH and slack servers. the performance of gentoo blew my mind when i tested it. The user community was great as well.

of course, your mileage will vary.

 

[silverpig]

The gentoo community is great for sure.

 

[Nothinman]

No matter how great the community is, I would never use Gentoo for a real server, well I wouldn't use Slackware either. And the speed benefits are a placebo, you may get a few % difference but it's not worth the hassle.

 

[lowpost]

Gentoo is meant for the cutting edge of linux technology.

It can be used for serving and can be very stable. All it takes is some research and proper management. It's definitely not going to be a click and go sort of update. But then again, if you want "click and go" why use linux?

 

[robisc]

If you're not willing to learn something, you shouldn't run a server, period.

When did I say I did or didn't want to learn anyhing, I said I wanted ease of use with no "fluff", I use Linux on 2 desktop boxes regularly at home, but I want my home server to be a hands off bulletproof file server. I do system admin all day at work in a large server environment and the last thing I want to do at home is spend too much time configuring client access and permissions to a server, right now I have a Win2k Server but want to go Linux.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: robisc

If you're not willing to learn something, you shouldn't run a server, period.

When did I say I did or didn't want to learn anyhing, I said I wanted ease of use with no "fluff", I use Linux on 2 desktop boxes regularly at home, but I want my home server to be a hands off bulletproof file server. I do system admin all day at work in a large server environment and the last thing I want to do at home is spend too much time configuring client access and permissions to a server, right now I have a Win2k Server but want to go Linux.

My post wasn't directed at you, but rather at yelo333's comment about Yast being an excellent tool if you're not willing to learn.

 

[Southerner]

Come on guys! This can't be a real discussion about Linux distro choices if everyone keeps avoiding the obvious. So, here we go....

The answer is BSD.

<ducking and running>

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Southerner
Come on guys! This can't be a real discussion about Linux distro choices if everyone keeps avoiding the obvious. So, here we go....

The answer is BSD.

<ducking and running>

A fine choice for many things, but not a very logical one in this case since his desktops are already Linux, and that's what he's familiar with.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Don't bring logic into this!

 

[lowpost]

OpenBSD seems like a viable option. Still quasi-unix and simlilar to linux. Same applications and programs. Try it out and see if it fits your needs.

Only a handful of vulnerabilites throughout it's history.

SELinux, NSALinux, and these types of projects might be your best option for a linux server. Gentoo has hardened sources and SElinux capabilites, so it's another possibility.

Here's a good place to compare distros

 

[Southerner]

OK, honest answer...

To me, the problem with "Linux" is that you're going to have to deal with different tools, file locations, and defaults in each different distribution. This, IMHO is a pain, as I want to learn how to do something once and then be able to depend on that forever into the future. You can't do that even within one distro IME (think Redhat from 5.2 to 8 -- ugly changes in file locations, tools, and the "expected way to do things.")

Right now you've got 2 distros; adding another is going to increase the complexity more than you need to. I'd personally choose one distro and try to run it everywhere that it's a reasonable choice. You like Suse? Plenty good enough. Mandrake your style? Cool -- it can be made to work well too. Fedora? Well, if that's your thing.

You might want to look into Apt and Debian -- if I were sticking with Linux Debian is where I'd move. It "just works" in a way that allows you to install easily, once, and upgrade from there in a rational manner (ie, not popping in a CD and choosing "upgrade" which may or may not break previously installed apps that the distro maker didn't anticipate.).

Of course, you can distill the above paragraphs into "FreeBSD is a better choice for most," and get the same general feel. Note that I'm using XP on my laptop (can't get away from Quickbooks and do my billing in a reasonable way, unfortunately) and I run Unix on other machines what I SSH (or ssh -X) to. I do know that FreeBSD 5 supports firewire in the GENERIC kernel, though.

 

[Sunner]

I agree about mixing distros too much.
But throwing an OpenBSD box in there is taking it one step further, and unless there's something particular in OpenBSD that the OP wants, I don't see any reason to.

For now, Debian is my general purpose OS of choice, and I prefer OpenBSD for some things, such as firewalls.

For the particular task mentioned here, I have a hard time seeing any particular benefit to any of the BSD's compared to Linux, so just going with a good Linux distro seems to be the right way to me.
If the OP feels he can handle involving Debian alongside SuSE and Mandrake, I'd say that's the best choice, of course that's just my opinion.
Of course I'd probably try to convert the desktops to Debian too, unified environment, and a good distro, best of both worlds

 

[Nothinman]

To me, the problem with "Linux" is that you're going to have to deal with different tools, file locations, and defaults in each different distribution. This, IMHO is a pain, as I want to learn how to do something once and then be able to depend on that forever into the future. You can't do that even within one distro IME (think Redhat from 5.2 to 8 -- ugly changes in file locations, tools, and the "expected way to do things.")

RH 5.2 was akin to what, NT 4 to Win2K3? Hell even in the FreeBSD 4.x->5.x time frame some semi-major changes happened, you can't depend on anything forever into the future. I would say the level of noticable changes was greater in Windows in that time-frame and people dealt just fine. The thing is, if you know what you're looking for chances are you can find it without too much hassle no matter what distro you're using. I really prefer the way Debian does things and I hate the /etc/sysconfig crap, but I deal with it fine when I have to look at a box at work that runs RedHat.

 

[groovin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
No matter how great the community is, I would never use Gentoo for a real server, well I wouldn't use Slackware either. And the speed benefits are a placebo, you may get a few % difference but it's not worth the hassle.

gentoo is always thought of as a bleeding edge distro, but if you set it up and maintain it correctly, it can be just as stable as any other distro. i do hear lots of people breaking their boxes though when they incorrectly/carelessly do system updates.

the performance is not just a placebo. not in my case at least. as i said, milage varies, and on my systems, the mileage gained was great.