LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   2013 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2013-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-109/)
-   -   Server Distribution of the Year (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2013-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-109/server-distribution-of-the-year-4175488203/)

jeremy 12-16-2013 09:21 PM

Server Distribution of the Year
 
What distribution do you think is best suited for a server environment?

--jeremy

druuna 12-17-2013 01:41 AM

RHEL, still the best for production environments in my opinion.

astrogeek 12-17-2013 01:42 AM

Slackware shines for me.

kooru 12-17-2013 01:46 AM

slackware

mtlhd 12-17-2013 08:37 AM

Debian.
 
Debian, easy to use and super stable.

Fnux 12-17-2013 05:26 PM

When it comes to stability, I can't vote for any other distro than Debian.

parcox 12-17-2013 08:13 PM

When it comes to stability, I can't vote for any other distro than Slackware.

Tux! 12-18-2013 01:30 AM

OpenSUSE. Default distro has it all.

taurolyon 12-20-2013 03:08 AM

From this list, Deb or Cent - but I'd probably build an Arch system from the ground up.

tabzz 12-20-2013 06:52 AM

Debian.

ricciare 12-20-2013 01:52 PM

Slackware

sycho123321 12-30-2013 10:21 PM

Debian its stable and canrun literaly forever

clauslack 01-03-2014 05:17 AM

Slackware

metallica1973 01-03-2014 09:42 AM

Debian by far

jst_joe 01-03-2014 08:29 PM

+1 for Debian

cowlitzron 01-07-2014 12:11 PM

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.

dragoon_jas 01-12-2014 06:01 AM

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.

savotije 01-15-2014 03:17 AM

CentOS

metalaarif 01-15-2014 03:21 AM

I use RHEL, CentOS and Slackware but I think Slackware is the Best

Cristiano Urban 01-15-2014 07:36 AM

CentOS

coc568 01-15-2014 08:04 AM

I am going with Slackware

Tux! 01-17-2014 01:24 AM

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.

Habitual 01-17-2014 07:44 AM

I voted CentOS as our company uses that on it's managed servers.
It is predictable and easily configured and serviced.

I can't tell you how many times an "apt-get install x" has broken things.
Not everything in a Ubuntu repo works OOTB.

charles95 01-19-2014 06:52 PM

CentOS. It's free. It's solid and each release has a very long life.

Genesis2 01-20-2014 07:10 PM

I really like Debian Stable for servers. And it is quite good for desktop also.

mariuz 01-22-2014 08:38 AM

I use Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS , Gentoo looks interesting with openrc init system on the server side

gotfw 01-25-2014 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taurolyon (Post 5084387)
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?

touch21st 01-29-2014 07:11 AM

Suse, Red hat, Debian

dansimon 02-02-2014 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotfw (Post 5105086)
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 :)

ganey 02-03-2014 07:14 PM

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.

gotfw 02-04-2014 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dansimon (Post 5109918)
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 :)

You sort of just made my point :-P

Not a matter of being lazy but more a matter of things being vetted a bit more thoroughly before being pushed out to the repos, as I don't like getting beta's in my updates, nor managing "ignores" while I test every little thing extensively. Rolling distro's like Arch help find bugs push reports/fixes upstream but I don't want that in server land.

gotfw 02-04-2014 02:22 AM

CentOS
 
This is another tough one. Voting CentOS because it's true FOSS offering alternative to corporate offerings mandating expensive support contracts.

I'd like to take a closer look at Scientific Linux one of these days when I get some spare cycles though.... yeah, right...

cowlitzron 02-05-2014 11:29 AM

I'm surprised that Slackware was the winner of this category this year after Debian won it all of the previous six years that this category was voted on.

touch21st 02-16-2014 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by druuna (Post 5082063)
RHEL, still the best for production environments in my opinion.

I agreee, and Slackware should be wonderful for geeks and programmars

touch21st 02-16-2014 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowlitzron (Post 5112155)
I'm surprised that Slackware was the winner of this category this year after Debian won it all of the previous six years that this category was voted on.

me too. I've never seen any server installed slackware


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.