LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   2008 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2008-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-83/)
-   -   Server Distribution of the Year (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2008-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-83/server-distribution-of-the-year-695611/)

jeremy 01-07-2009 12:09 PM

Server Distribution of the Year
 
The best Linux distribution to install on a server.

--jeremy

Cuetzpallin 01-07-2009 05:15 PM

Is there any other?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy (Post 3400102)
The best Linux distribution to install on a server.

--jeremy

Slackware off course, is there any other?

;)

ncsuapex 01-08-2009 11:34 AM

CentOS!

the trooper 01-09-2009 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuetzpallin (Post 3400437)
Slackware off course, is there any other?

;)

Debian,i think you'll find.;)

sycamorex 01-09-2009 01:33 PM

Centos

Hitboxx 01-09-2009 03:05 PM

RHEL.

jag2000 01-09-2009 10:13 PM

Debian or ClarkConnect is really good as well.

mjjzf 01-10-2009 02:29 AM

Debian is still the server distribution for me.

taylor_venable 01-10-2009 07:23 AM

We use Ubuntu at work. It's pretty OK.

But I find I have to do less configuration to make things do what I want them to on OpenBSD than on Ubuntu (just because the Debian people like to futz with things so much... why can't Tomcat 5.5 servlets make socket connections by default? If Tomcat is compromised, sockets are probably one of the lesser of your concerns.)

divyashree 01-11-2009 12:25 PM

Rhel is uncomparable

jjthomas 01-12-2009 05:55 AM

Voted for CentOS. Going to be giving Lenny a try. We'll See where I am at next year.

wanas 01-14-2009 12:53 AM

I wont vote but I love Debain always
its always the best :)

bathory 01-15-2009 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuetzpallin (Post 3400437)
Slackware off course, is there any other?
;)

I second to that!!!

murugesan 01-15-2009 02:37 AM

Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

svalovic 01-15-2009 03:32 AM

Debian

anandharaj 01-15-2009 04:15 AM

For myself, i vote for Ubuntu LTS...

But, i also vote for RHEL / CentOS

hem853 01-15-2009 05:36 AM

I'd rather have Solaris on a server but of the options here it has to be Centos

zeta-zeta 01-15-2009 07:46 AM

slackware rules!!

don_will 01-15-2009 07:56 AM

CentoS

DarkFlame 01-15-2009 09:43 AM

I'm using Ubuntu Server 8.10, so I voted for Ubuntu LTS (no 8.10 available in the poll).

naghi32 01-15-2009 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bathory (Post 3409300)
I second to that!!!

Slackware`s my favorite choice, actualy my only choice i might say.

linker_85 01-15-2009 10:46 AM

Slackware

jstephens84 01-15-2009 11:15 AM

Debian All the way, Then Freebsd, then slackware.

drokmed 01-15-2009 11:38 AM

Most of our servers run Debian stable, currently Etch. It is solid, but there are some very old packages! Dansguardian on Etch is a release from 2005! That's 4 years! Too old. I've started upgrading some servers to Lenny.

This year, I'm going to check out some distro's for our servers. I want new packages, probably compiled. So far, I'm thinking slackware/gentoo vs freebsd/openbsd. I love openbsd, but would prefer to stick with native linux, and not the compatibility modes of BSD.

proopnarine 01-15-2009 11:43 AM

Disappointing to not see Fedora on the list...

LuisC-SM 01-15-2009 01:52 PM

Debian/Ubuntu

spdl 01-15-2009 03:25 PM

CentOS!

cincindie 01-15-2009 03:38 PM

I prefer Fedora over RHEL, even though it may be a bit unstable.

mski35 01-15-2009 03:55 PM

We have a few RHEL servers at work and I've become quite partial to them.

yasker 01-15-2009 04:04 PM

Slackware.
 
Greetings to all,

Slackware is the Linux distribution I would use for a server.

A second option would be Centos.

jstephens84 01-15-2009 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drokmed (Post 3410004)
Most of our servers run Debian stable, currently Etch. It is solid, but there are some very old packages! Dansguardian on Etch is a release from 2005! That's 4 years! Too old. I've started upgrading some servers to Lenny.

This year, I'm going to check out some distro's for our servers. I want new packages, probably compiled. So far, I'm thinking slackware/gentoo vs freebsd/openbsd. I love openbsd, but would prefer to stick with native linux, and not the compatibility modes of BSD.

why not just compile the sources on debian. that is what I do if I want a bleeding edge package.

drokmed 01-15-2009 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstephens84 (Post 3410306)
why not just compile the sources on debian. that is what I do if I want a bleeding edge package.

I'll probably end up doing that. I'm going to take this opportunity to check out the others too.

bg4 01-15-2009 04:52 PM

The best server distro,,
 
is Slackware of course.

b2bwild 01-16-2009 01:07 AM

Why do you even need RHEL? when you have CentOS..

mski35 01-16-2009 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b2bwild (Post 3410730)
Why do you even need RHEL? when you have CentOS..

In my case it's mostly to put the company heads at ease knowing there is support for the distro

custangro 01-17-2009 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hem853 (Post 3409525)
I'd rather have Solaris on a server but of the options here it has to be Centos

Same Here

masinick 01-19-2009 10:29 AM

RHEL and Debian
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by b2bwild View Post
Why do you even need RHEL? when you have CentOS..
Quote:

Originally Posted by mski35 (Post 3410891)
In my case it's mostly to put the company heads at ease knowing there is support for the distro

In the office, especially in large companies, there are service and support contracts. Red Hat does as well with these as anyone, and there is always a solid, reliable place to get updates, documentation, anything that is needed.

CentOS certainly provides a less expensive alternative, but if that is the case, I'd just as soon use Debian.

At work, on our official supported servers we widely deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. On some SQA departmental systems where we maintain them ourselves, we have also experimented with Debian servers with very good results.

At home, I use Debian based systems for the majority of my work, whether desktops or servers, but I test all different systems in the Linux and BSD circles. Here, I'd take a Debian based system any day, but I frequently use Debian derived systems, not just plain Debian systems.

custangro 01-19-2009 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masinick (Post 3413893)
Quote:
Originally Posted by b2bwild View Post
Why do you even need RHEL? when you have CentOS..


In the office, especially in large companies, there are service and support contracts. Red Hat does as well with these as anyone, and there is always a solid, reliable place to get updates, documentation, anything that is needed.

CentOS certainly provides a less expensive alternative, but if that is the case, I'd just as soon use Debian.

At work, on our official supported servers we widely deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. On some SQA departmental systems where we maintain them ourselves, we have also experimented with Debian servers with very good results.

At home, I use Debian based systems for the majority of my work, whether desktops or servers, but I test all different systems in the Linux and BSD circles. Here, I'd take a Debian based system any day, but I frequently use Debian derived systems, not just plain Debian systems.

Here we run mostly Sun Solaris servers with some CentOS servers. But it looks like we are going to be putting more Linux in, and most likley going to be a Solaris/Debian shop.

-C

wawrzyn242 01-20-2009 01:40 PM

It depends on my needs. Generally CentOS but Slackware is very good on some special occasions.

chackercon 01-21-2009 09:37 AM

It has to be slackware centos had RHE are good but it slackware

custangro 01-21-2009 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wawrzyn242 (Post 3415293)
It depends on my needs. Generally CentOS but Slackware is very good on some special occasions.

I like Slackware...but I wouldn't run it on a server (I have installed it on my desktop once...very nice!!)

IMHO, a Server solution should come with support. So something like Ubuntu Server (supported by Canonical), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (supported by Red Hat), or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (Supported By Novell).

CentOS is good for a development server (same goes with OpenSUSE), but other than than...I wouldn't recommend running your "bread and butter" on Slackware...

Sorry Slackers! But I have to agree with the guy who signs my checks! ;)

-C

DotHQ 01-21-2009 02:07 PM

CentOS. I've had to pay th $1500 per server for support of RHEL and we finally dropped it and switched to CentOS. RH support was bad, very bad. Sure not worth paying for. But some management in the front office felt better if they had a company behind it. But this year instead of paying out over 100k we switched to CentOS. No issues at all. Wish I had got part of the cash that we saved them .... but it sure did not work out that way. :D


What can Slackware do that CentOS can't ....or better worded, why Slackware over CentOS? I've never run that OS and am curious. I do not want to start a flame war over it. TIA.

jhwilliams 01-25-2009 08:09 AM

I've actually seen quite a few Ubuntu servers popping up out in the cosmos, and have been wondering why people are choosing it in lieu of Debian. Would one such person have some words of inspiration?

gotfw 01-26-2009 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hem853 (Post 3409525)
I'd rather have Solaris on a server but of the options here it has to be Centos

+1. Not to mention ZFS rocks!!

gotfw 01-26-2009 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitboxx (Post 3402810)
RHEL.

Ho man!! Would you mind passing me some of what you've been smoking? :-P

SCerovec 01-28-2009 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custangro (Post 3416485)
I like Slackware...but I wouldn't run it on a server (I have installed it on my desktop once...very nice!!)

IMHO, a Server solution should come with support. So something like Ubuntu Server (supported by Canonical), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (supported by Red Hat), or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (Supported By Novell).

CentOS is good for a development server (same goes with OpenSUSE), but other than than...I wouldn't recommend running your "bread and butter" on Slackware...

Sorry Slackers! But I have to agree with the guy who signs my checks! ;)

-C

I thought i just vote for Slackware, maybe quoting someone that did too, but then i read this and reconsidered...

Yes, You have a point there:
I too would leave a commercial server "behind me",...

but,

I do work in a firm with a one single central server acting as a gateway for internet and LAN - it's on Slackware Since 2005.

It will stay Slackware as long as 1+1 equals 2

"Just works" on every day tasks

"Just works" on minor updates

"Just works" on major updates

"Just works" on hardware up-scaling

"Just works" on dirty hacks for new services and protocols (as the running software is nearly vanilla and patches cleanly)

And just keeps me "needed" and "unreplaceable" to a reasonable extent (I really don't ever push my luck)

How (and what) do You compare to that?

So it's Slackware.

And here on LQ, I allways get <48h -> solution anyway

:8-)
where were we?

gotfw 01-29-2009 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custangro (Post 3416485)
I like Slackware...but I wouldn't run it on a server (I have installed it on my desktop once...very nice!!)

IMHO, a Server solution should come with support. So something like Ubuntu Server (supported by Canonical), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (supported by Red Hat), or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (Supported By Novell).

CentOS is good for a development server (same goes with OpenSUSE), but other than than...I wouldn't recommend running your "bread and butter" on Slackware...

Sorry Slackers! But I have to agree with the guy who signs my checks! ;)

-C

lol!! The niavete!

I once worked at a shop where the _ALL_ of the RH linux boxes were hacked. Manwhile, _ALL_ of my FreeBSD boxes were impermeable to the same 'sploit.

Commercial support does NOT give you better support. Only somewhere else to point the finger when things go bad. Those who believe otherwise are only deluding themselves.

custangro 01-29-2009 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotfw (Post 3425353)
lol!! The niavete!

I once worked at a shop where the _ALL_ of the RH linux boxes were hacked. Manwhile, _ALL_ of my FreeBSD boxes were impermeable to the same 'sploit.

Commercial support does NOT give you better support. Only somewhere else to point the finger when things go bad. Those who believe otherwise are only deluding themselves.

Interesting; because my RHEL servers have never gotten hacked (**knocks on wood**).

Those servers probably got hacked because of poor system administration. It's been my experience that, not matter what system you are running (including Microsoft Servers); the system is only as secure as how you set it up.

It's foolish to think that one OS is more secure than another.

-C

gotfw 01-30-2009 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custangro (Post 3425490)
Interesting; because my RHEL servers have never gotten hacked (**knocks on wood**).

Those servers probably got hacked because of poor system administration. It's been my experience that, not matter what system you are running (including Microsoft Servers); the system is only as secure as how you set it up.

It's foolish to think that one OS is more secure than another.

-C

lol.. the niavete raises it's head once again.... (nothing personal...>;-)

Some OS's _ARE_ most assuredly more secure than others, e.g. OpenBSD because they build it with security first and foremost in mind. Other OS's are based upon other priorities such as convenience first in mind, e.g. Windoze. Or if those examples don't float your boat substitute SELinux, TrustedBSD, etc. for default Mandrake, or whatever...

The important thing to remember is to choose the proper tool for the task at hand. There is no SAK and one size does not fit all.

fwiw, the RH incident I referenced was circa 96-97 and the RH admins definitely knew their stuff. No doubt Linux has come a long way since then but I could still cite several more RH horror stories at a couple Fortune 500 companies. Yeah, the shit did roll downhill and that's the value add that RH offers. That said, RH would be the LAST distro I'd use but your mileage may vary and this is the stuff of holy wars.

custangro 01-30-2009 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotfw (Post 3426021)
lol.. the niavete raises it's head once again.... (nothing personal...>;-)

Some OS's _ARE_ most assuredly more secure than others, e.g. OpenBSD because they build it with security first and foremost in mind. Other OS's are based upon other priorities such as convenience first in mind, e.g. Windoze. Or if those examples don't float your boat substitute SELinux, TrustedBSD, etc. for default Mandrake, or whatever...

The important thing to remember is to choose the proper tool for the task at hand. There is no SAK and one size does not fit all.

fwiw, the RH incident I referenced was circa 96-97 and the RH admins definitely knew their stuff. No doubt Linux has come a long way since then but I could still cite several more RH horror stories at a couple Fortune 500 companies. Yeah, the shit did roll downhill and that's the value add that RH offers. That said, RH would be the LAST distro I'd use but your mileage may vary and this is the stuff of holy wars.

I disagree.

We are running RHEL (Along with Sun Solaris) on our most critical servers; and the rest are a mix of CentOS/Opensolaris for development. We running Exchange and Active Directory; and we also have some MAC Servers in there too.

No Problems (**KNOCKS ON WOOD**).

I'm sorry but security is how you implement it; it's not in the OS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotfw (Post 3426021)
lol.. the niavete raises it's head once again.... (nothing personal...>;-)

Insults doesn't make your point any more valid.

-C


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.