2013 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2013 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2013. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 4th.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Server Distribution of the Year
Debian should be the standard for servers. Plenty of server packages, support for plenty of platforms. Uses the package manager and package format used by most GNU/Linux users.
Slackware, is the best! very stable, we have no problem for our mailserver for almost 5 years, installed in a P4 clone PC.
Talking about stability, security, speed, and robustness it's proven.
For light in-house servers (to run things like git, jenkins, databases etc) I run OpenSUSE. Just as easy to install as my desktop. It has proven to meet our needs and it is very stable.
Running Evergreen versions gets me prolonged updates.
From this list, Deb or Cent - but I'd probably build an Arch system from the ground up.
Even for server side of things, eh? And I'm not just thinking about running lts kernel here, but don't you think maybe a bit too bleeding edge? Yeah, rolling distros tend to find, and fix, things quickly, but maybe a bit too risky for applications where stability is key consideration? Seriously, I'm curious if anyone other than Arch project itself is really running this server side in a production environment?
Even for server side of things, eh? And I'm not just thinking about running lts kernel here, but don't you think maybe a bit too bleeding edge?
I am no expert but I have heard that some people prize Arch as a server OS. One reason being that the changes come in very small packages and are easy for sysadmins to adapt to, as opposed to a full reinstall with massive changes, another strength is that you quickly get security patches straight from the source code developers, this is a nice contrast to servers such as Debian and RHEL witch has to maintain essentialy legacy software.
But if you are planing to run Arch as a server you *NEED* to subscribe to the security newsfeed and always check it before doing system updates. It is also probably wise to exclude mission critical packages from your package manager, and update these manually.
Conclusion: It is possible to use Arch as a server, but I don't know if it would be "better" then the more traditional server distros, and I would not recommend it to lazy sysadmins
CentOS. I like RHEL systems and building from source. Yes sometimes I have more debugging to do, but I have more control and don't just go with they "okay install all the deps for me"
I only recently updated a Cent5 to the latest Cent6, everything was still working on the 5 box.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.