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
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.
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.
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
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.