Poll: Best Linux Server Distro
 

What is the best linux distro to load up as a server/Firewall?

I have currently running Trustix Secure Linux but it will not longer have support updates after 2.2 so I must look for an alternate Server OS.
I know that i will be able to run Trustix for a few years but I would like others opinions

This is NOT a poll about your favorite distro. Its about what is best suited to run a Server with the following requirements.

Hardware specs
Pentium II 300 Mhz
192 Megs RAM
6 GB HDD
No Gui Required

Will be serving 4 clients
Services that will be running
Firewall - iptables based
Dns Server
Dhcp Server
Squid Proxy with Squidguard
Webserver ( for testing web design)
Ftp Server
Ssh
Mysql
Email - smtp/imap
Samba
openldap

If there is a Distro that would be better suited for my needs please post it below.

Thank you.

Slackware is stable, screams on old machines, and is meant for non-graphics work. Try that.

even though openbsd technically isn't linux, it has my vote. there's a lot of people who would recommend it for a server. the openbsd people claim it's the most secure+stable OS out there, and reading any review on it will show you why.

This takes me back to one of my first IT questions; what is a server?? Very broadly answered, I was told a server is anything that provides network services. I don't deal that much outside of my distro but I've built ... 10 Slack servers for various services (not all at the same site) and I can't imagine any other distro being easier. If what you're looking for is a "press here to make a server" button you certainly won't find that in Slack but if you're any type of serious admin whatsoever you know that that's exactly what you don't want. I would describe Slackware as the epitome of modularity lending itself to whatever goal you wish to achieve as long as you know what it is you're striving for. Oh yes, and it doesn't hurt that it's super-fast and ultra-stable (I have no hard evidence to back that statement up, that's just my fair-and-balanced opinion).

I personally use Clarkconnect for a file server, router, firefall, http, ftp, and Q3 game server.
It's light (a lilttle ove r 600 megs. has http config and runs webmin as well.

I have never tried slackware i'm downloading it right now.
Im trying to get a feel for it as far as i know im not going with fedora/suse/mandrake it just too bloated of an os to do just server stuff
as i guess since it will have no X server on there slack will be nice for that , i'll give it a try for sure.

I dunno about slack , I need to try it sometime.

I'm gonna talk about debian. I think that the way they run it works equally well in any situation. I have done 3 types of debian installs: desktop (which is a REally hot machine, i use it as a server , a router, and a desktop) , server (webservr only, no X and on cheap hardware), and also an old laptop.

I like debian because it is super customizable. You can run as little or as much as you want. I also like how they haven't tried to write all their own little system administration apps, it's a lot of .conf work so if you aren't into that then you might as well go with redhat or something. But I also like debian because I can just do apt-get update and it updates all the software on my system.

oh and that's another thing i like, how they have stable, testing, and unstable releases. But if you aren't afraid of Vim or emacs (i'm afraid of emacs... *shudder*) then I would suggest debian.

though slack sounds pretty good too... but don't you have to compile everything by hand? that sound's like kind of a pain for anything other than a server... esp. if you like having the latest software like i do ;)

To tell you the truth i've tried a lot of distributions and none of them has given me as much grief as deibian has. I need to try it out again. Last time i couldn't even get it installed before it would crash out, but it might have been a hardware problem.

i believe bsd makes the best server distro.

RedHat
 

I agree with the comments about OpenBSD being more secure by default, but if you know your stuff, you can take pretty much any distro and lock it down well enough to use on a server or firewall. I've been running RedHat as my server/firewall for a couple of years, so that's what I voted for.

im kinda on the fence on this one.

NetBSD or Slackware

youre cpu power and ram are a bit low, and youre running a number of 'essential' network services like ssh, firewalling [IPF in the bsd world], DNS-BIND, DHCP, NAT, etc.. pretty much ideal for a NetBSD box. NetBSD is designed spsifically to pump out data with very little overhead. it does, however, have a higher learning curve. but you can pretty much strip down the os to have JUST what you need, and if you have a fair amount of experince with linux already, you shouldnt have too many problems.

the reason i say slackware, is because of samba. i have run into some problems running samba on BSD based systems in the past. all character translation problems. i would also STRONGLY caution you from running a samba system on something that is sitting at the edge of your network, accessable from the outside world. user data should be hosted on a seperate system inside the network. not only for security reasons, but in light of the other services that you are running [proxy and sql, see below].

im not spesifically familliar wiith SQL and Squid, but i think your disk space might be a bit lacking. proxy caching and DB read/write can be very disk and memory intensive, and DB sizes can get large quite quickly depending on what the DB is used for. this combined with a samba server and potentially critical user data could be a disater waiting to happen.

disk space is not an issue i can slap on a 80 gig drive no probs.
I understand that its a security risk running all those services, but i have not other choice this box has to be on 24/7 not only because its provides internet for the house but also because i need to be able to ssh home anytime i need. Its more for learning than anything else. i'll have tripwire on there also just in case :)

slackware *bsd or debian, in that order

Rat ba$tard! You stole my server! Really, the specs are almost the same. It wouldn't happen to be an old HP Vectra would it?

ClarkConnect installs fairly painlessly, is RPM/Redhat based, and makes use of apt-get.

Sort of depends on mostly on what you're familiar with, how much work you're willing or want to do, and if you need to do any funky custom tweaking. If you're a Redhat/Fedora person, Redhat/Fedora/Whitebox will work and ClarkConnect is really geared towards set it up and go. Kind of a Redhat/Fedora customized distro just for servers.

If you want to squeeze the last little bit of speed out of that rig, you could go with Gentoo. Of course it might take you a week or more to finish compiling everything . . .

Slackware install with the SEKernel

Debian or OpenBSD.

I must comment, though... that's quite a list of services to run on a single machine. The problem is that if a vulnerability exists in any one of the services then it is quite possible to compromise _all_ of the services. You really don't want a flaw in a web service to cause your IMAP email to be readable. I would suggest you consider splitting things up onto multiple physical or virtual machines, FWIW.

Our company has around 200 servers ranging from dual P2 233's ($200) to a 8 Way Xeon MP server($200k).

All are run on Slackware from version 7.1 to 10.1.

Slackware is what I would use. It is stable and does what we need it to. Some of it's tasks are firewall with iptables and with ipchains, ftp servers, rsync servers, squid proxy servers, web servers, mysql servers, ntp servers, dns, dhcp, mail servers etc... We deal with huge amount clients and they have been very happy with what we provide to them.

So for me, slackware all the way.

FreeBSD isn't Linux, but i voted for it anyway. Handles heavy loads on whimpy hardware like a champ.

The large number of Slackware responses surprises me. I've worked with it and found it completely unsuitable for business use. Red Hat seems to make a good newbie desktop OS, but once again wasn't terribly strong as a server for us. SuSE has made an excellent server distro IMO. However, on my lower end machines, BSD all the way! :) If security is the biggest concern, OpenBSD is my favorite, but it can be a little tricky to install. FreeBSD is a no-brainer install. NetBSD can be stuffed onto pretty much any machine ever made. They've all got their place :)

Okay I'll bite. Where is Gentoo?

It's a distro. Takes way too long to compile for me to even look at. When a server crashes, I don't have 2-4 days to reinstall and recomile everything.


Slack > *

Your right it is a distro! I agree that compiling from source takes longer then installing binaries but this also has its advantages as well.

Hmmm what I would look for in a server Distro if it were me (and I am by no means attmepting to be even professional about this this is soley based on if I had a server what would I want it to do)

1) A large tech support base behind it from a service that is available at any time.

2) Easy to keep up to date and after extensive testing be able to apply new and updated software that will enhance my server needs.

3) Know the company will be there down the road later to support me

That being said I would robably choose either Novell SuSe Linux Server ($349) out of that list. However I would also consider a Windows 2003 Server Edition ($399) because I have tried both and equally like both.

I voted slackware- because it lets you DO things. Debian as a close second- but I found it hard to use.

titanium_geek

I am as well as I've always used RedHat and now Fedora as the server distos I've installed. I have nothing against Slackware, since I run it at home, but I just never thought it install it as a server.

I would think _any_ distro would perform as a server if configured properly. Running the server in a non-GUI runlevel helps conserve resources.

Peace...