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...