Hello,

So as you already know I am getting ready to select my Linux flavor the problem is I have so many choices. So I would like to talk to you "a vet of Unix" about what Unix will work best for me. My project will be around CGI/Perl I am running a Windows 8 box. I had Apache as my last server. I was told Free BSD, Linux, or Red Hat. The other thing is my internet speed is not the fastest so files that are large will take a long time to download and halt the progress of my work.

So do you know what Unix Server will best suit my need? Can you add a link to where I can get a good copy? If you can I think that would be great and I thank you in advance.

Regards

Hello again I also wanted to know if any one came across any online test server so I could test my CGI/Perl files. Thanks

As it happens, there are (at least) 3 variations of 'BSD' and RedHat (actually RHEL) is a distro (variation) of Linux...

To answer your qn, there are probably several distros of Linux that would work.
Personally I'd say RHEL if you want to pay for updates and support(!) or Centos (a free rebuild of RHEL) that comes with updates but not support.
RHEL is the most widely used distro in commerce, just to give you an idea...

Given that Centos is free, running it at home (at least to start with) will make it easier for you to become acquainted.
See https://www.centos.org/download/

HTH

Useful links
http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz
www.linuxtopia.org

What is the purpose of your Linux Server?

If it is simply to have a play and learn then I think either Debian, Ubuntu (A Debian derivative but not totally binary compatible) or CentOS (as mentioned a RHEL derivative, now owned by Red Hat - AFAIK it's binary compatible) would be good choices (personally I prefer Debian but just due to personal preference and familiarity). IMO these are the big 3 meaning that you have the best chance of getting help and finding answers to your questions (as they inevitably occur).

If your purpose is to simply run a server for a specific task then have a look at TurnKey Linux (built on top of Debian stable). Now obviously I'm biased (as I'm closely involved with TurnKey) but I don't think you can get up and running quicker than choosing a prebuilt software appliance... They are available as a VM build (VMDK that can be imported into VMware products or VirtualBox) or ISO (burn to CD/USB and install from there)... For a simple web hosting server I'd suggest the LAMP appliance (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Python/Perl).[COLOR="Silver"]

As it completely depends on your requirements. but at the same time for all server needs i would recommend CentOS for its greater stability and support.

No offense crackconfig, but on what basis do you suggest that CentOS has "greater stability and support"? Fair enough if that's your personal opinion, but you state it like a fact without giving any idea how you might have come to that conclusion or in what context you mean those things...

I think there are plenty of Debian users who would argue that Debian is just as stable and well supported... Some might argue that on the fact that security fixes go to RHEL first, before they make it to CentOS that Debian is in fact more secure (in fairness it usually happens pretty quick with CentOS - although there is precedence for security fixes to take up to 4 months to make it into CentOS leaving it vulnerable for that whole time...).

If by support you mean length of time an OS release is supported for (with backported security patches for example) then yes CentOS rules... 7 years from release date IIRC, but that has it downsides... Like 7 year old packages...

Obviously Debian suffers a similar issue (~5 years support). Also Debian's release cycle of "don't release until ready" does make some people uncomfortable because you never know how long it will be before the next stable version will be available - or how long the current release will be supported for. Personally I don't think that is an issue as 'old stable' is always supported for 12mths from the release of a new stable (giving ample time for migration...).

If instead you are considering 'support' in the sense of the supported software (i.e. number of packages available from official repository) then Debian is far better supported (currently 46632 packages supported with backported security patches) than CentOS (1660 according to Wikipedia - although TBH I'm surprised it's so few...). Although in fairness, Debian also includes tons of desktop software that is completely irrelevant in a server setup...

Perosnally I wouldn't knock CentOS (mostly because I haven't used it much) but I have found Debian 'stable' (currently 7/Wheezy) to be a rock solid stable distro (both on desktop and server) and to have plenty of community support available.

It sounds like we possibly agree on Ubuntu though... Whilst it can be cool because it has newer packages and a clear 5 year support cycle; with new LTS versions released every 2 years (I wouldn't use anything other than an LTS for a server). But due to the tight release cycle I think that Ubuntu often releases a little half-baked. Also it is worthy of note that in Ubuntu only the 'main' repo has guaranteed backported security patches, none of the other official repos do...

Random links of interest:
Five Reasons to use Debian as a Server
6 Things You Should Know About CentOS Linux

While most of your info is semi sound, it is out of date and no longer accurate. Specifically your 6 things to know about CentOS.

About a month or so ago RH bought into CentOS and now has direct RH engineers/design team working on the CentOS project. As patches are released for RHEL, they will be released the same day for CentOS.

As for server platforms, there are a few that are note worthy. in no particular order:

1. Slackware (one of the most pure Linux distros out there, very stable, with loads of backports)
2. RHEL, this includes all of its forks. One of the most tested server distros on the market, and if you choose to pay for personal service they offer some great perks to include but not limited to a RH engineer coming to your location and fixing/configuring/setting up as required.
3. SuSe and its forks. A lot of people give the SuSe team hell for being "bought out" but hey they are following a similar business model of RH. The biggest difference is they made the choice to get in bed with Microsoft and that has pissed a lot of the community off.
4. Debian, very clean, stable, long life cycle, but can be a royal PITA when they make changes as their is a drastically increased risk of the old package not functioning properly with the new updates to either a library or a kernel.

In the past I have used both Debian and RHEL servers, currently I use RHEL as one of my last contracts was to support roughly 3500 RHEL servers in the field so I became much more comfortable with RHEL then Debian. In my house I run a CentOS 6.x server with 3 Fedora 19 laptops that will be upgraded to 20 in the next month or so as well as two older iMacs.

The bottom line is any of the "server" class distros with a long supported life cycle will do you fine as a SERVER, but not as a desktop or a workstation.

I will also state to avoid Canonicle. Sorry but putting spyware into a Linux distro and not making it an opt-in choice, but an opt-out that is hidden from the normal user, sorry Ill never support that company again until they remove their spyware and refuse to ever put any back into a system again. Yes Im talking about Ubuntu.

I think 'semi-sound' is a bit harsh! But fair call on the out of date links...

I did mention that in my first post, but I did neglect to mention it in my second, so fair call on that. One would assume that Red Hat ownership will have positive implications for CentOS but it is not yet proven. IMO it is too early to know for sure...

1. Slackware - I can't comment as I haven't ever used it.
2. RHEL - Enterprise level support is definitely a huge advantage (if you are operating your server in an enterprise environment). And if you are using RHEL in another context (i.e. work) then using RHEL forks/derivatives (e.g. CentOS) in other contexts (friends, family, home, etc) are a no-brainer (familiarity etc).
3. SuSe - As per 1, except my son has had a good experience with SUSE via SUSEStudio.
4. Debian - Not sure what you are referring to there? After package freeze (one of the last stages prior to 'testing' becoming the new 'stable') no new packages are added to the 'main' Debian repo - except for backported security patches (as per RHEL). Obviously there are packages added to the 'backports' repo though, is that what you are referring to? If so then I would assume that the same scenario would also apply to RHEL wouldn't it!?

Nice! That would definitely make a good case for using RHEL! Personally, at home; I run a ProxmoxVE server (Debian based hypervisor supporting both OpenVZ and KVM virtualisation) with numerous VMs (mostly TurnKey Linux containers for testing and development) and Debian Wheezy (stable) on my Laptop and Desktop (for work), with a Netbook and Desktop running Debian Jessie (testing)...

Totally agree on your server statement. However I disagree with your workstation/desktop comment (at least in the context of Debian - it may well apply to RHEL though...). Although I have had a good experience with Debian testing on my Netbook and Desktop (it's cool to have newer packages and I have rarely had issues) I prefer to run the same OS version on my work Laptop and Desktop so they are totally compatible with the servers I work on...

Agreed!

RH does not own Centos; they simply agreed to give Centos much closer access (direct) to the RHEL src and help them with personnel.

correct, there is not a "ownership" of CentOS it is still a community project just as SpaceWalk is, but RH has placed a large amount of their dev. engineers onto the CentOS team to work in getting patches, compatibility, etc... and also has dumped a large sum of cash into the project for upstream release of data.

My elaboration here is going to be very pathetic as its been close to 5 years since I ran Debian as a server. Any attempt to update the kernel often met with dependency hell much as with the older RHEL/CentOS/Fedora line. If they have resolved that issue now then that is fantastic.

The biggest issue you will run into with packages in a RHEL or any LTS environment is if you are running an application that requires a newer kernel or library that is not officially supported by the platform and start mixing "bleeding" edge tech with LTS libraries and kernels.

I can not speak for any other distro on kernel management but in the RHEL line once the line is live (out of beta) it remains on the same kernel version for its entire life cycle. RH does a great job at back porting security fixes into the older kernels over the 5-10 year life cycle of the release. The kernel updates in Debian are were I had my greatest issues.

sorry, my use of semi-sound was talking about the post i quoted only as some of the info was correct, but some was out of date, thus no longer sound advice.

Thanks for the clarification guys. My bad. That's what I get for reading the headlines and not the full story, and reaching a conclusion on insufficient info...

It depends I think... If there is a backported kernel in the Debian backports repo then it's simple... If not then installing from testing is straight forward in my experience, however generally not a great idea for a production server ('testing' does not receive security patches, just new versions).

From my perspective the same applies to Debian (backported security patches). I haven't had issues with Debian kernels, but TBH I've never updated kernels on servers (except from the repos) - never had the need...

Out of interest, Proxmox (which I use as a hypervisor - as mentioned in a previous post) actually uses a RHEL kernel - even though it's a Debian based distro! My understanding though is that this is because of latest KVM and OVZ support rather than any specific issue with the Debian kernel

Yeah, fair call on that point and thanks for the clarification. All good!

I would vote debian, rhel or centos in no particular order.

Centos and rhel has the software collections repo available meaningthat even though the kernel and stuff gets old you can get up to date php, databases, perletc, so in your case that may be a strong influence towards leaning in the rhel and centos direction.

Currently i believe the updated packages in SCL are as follow

Ruby 1.9.3 (ruby193)
Python 2.7 (python27)
Python 3.3 (python33)
PHP 5.4 (php54)
Perl 5.16.3 (perl516)
Node.js 0.10 (nodejs010)
MariaDB 5.5 (mariadb55)
MySQL 5.5 (mysql55)
PostgreSQL 9.2 (postgresql92)