Dear LQ-members with diverse Linux experience!

I'm looking for a good server Linux (or UNIX) for my home server.
I like the thought of FreeBSD being mainly from one contributor, but because of hardware compatibility and my good knowledge of Linux I'd prefer a Linux. Please help me find a good "alternative" to FreeBSD.


What I hope to get:

• OpenSource & free
• point release updating cycle
• very stable
• very well tested
• non-"chaotic" environment / update behaviour (kind of FreeBSD-feeling)
• slow pace, maybe bit conservative and calm environment/updating (kind of FreeBSD-feeling)
• no GUI
• major release support ≥ 4 years

Optionally:

• able to host VMs
• NAS optimised

What I'm going to use it for:

• remote backup
• hypervisor, if possible, otherwise I'll run all in one system
• NAS (via VM, but same OS, if possible)
• web server (via VM, but same OS, if possible)

Hardware I'm going to use:

• HP ProLaint MicroServer or similar

Not compatible distributions to myself:

• OpenSuSE (I don't like Yast)
• Debian (Somehow I never was able to make it running at all.)
• Ubuntu (Disagree with some concepts, e.g. a one-user-group for a user.)
• Oracle Linux (I still don't understand the concept of unbreakable kernel and I'm uncomfortable about Oracle.)

My current ideas are basically downstreams of REHL

• Rocky Linux
• Alma Linux

If you have any further distributions I could use / should try, please tell me, and also let me know, why you think so.

Knowing what about these causes such categorization might contribute to formulating a qualifying response.

Alma would have been one of my recommendations. A member of my LUG, who sysadmins a medium thin-client network in the enterprise, speaks highly of it, and I've had positive experiences with it in a VM.

Another would be Ubuntu Server LTS.

Just my two cents.

1 members found this post helpful.

@mrmazda
Sektion updated in original post.


@frankbell
Thanks for your answer, but please bring up more details about what makes it a good alternative to FreeBSD in your opinion.

With as server, the simpler the better. Though I've been using Red Hat based distros on and off for a long time, or perhaps because of that, I greatly prefer just about anything else when given the chance.

There is Alpine which is quite complete yet defaults to a very bare bones setup. Another option would be basic Devuan, which is a Debian derivative stripped of the systemd bloat and liabilities. The more I've been using Alpine in production, the more I have begun to like it, so it's what I would suggest for your short list. It does have a somewhat short support cycle though, but that is less likely to matter at the beginning as you will more likely than not be rebuilding several times as you experiment. Either way, start out with the least possible amount of processes and add in only what you need as you start to need it.

1 members found this post helpful.

Slackware ticks all of those boxes.

In my experience, it's bulletproof as a server on both physical and virtual machines.

1 members found this post helpful.

With few possible exceptions, the only time using YaST is necessary is for initial installation, as it's the foundation of the installer, the best installer by far of those I've ever used. Virtually everything YaST can do can be done from a shell prompt, while there are plenty of things YaST cannot do that can be done from a shell prompt. Its package manager zypper is also the best package manager I've used, which makes major upgrades just as smooth and reliable as routine updates. Note that YaST has more than one face, both GTK and QT that I know of, possibly others. QT is used for the installer.

How hard did you try with Debian? I can't remember ever having serious trouble installing it. The only fault I find in its installer is insistence on formatting any swap partition to be included in the installed system. It's necessary to not include existing swap in the installed system until after installation is complete to workaround this behavior. Debians the foundation of many distros, for good reasons, an outstanding distribution for anyone who places a premium on long term support or reliability.

Typically HP certifies SuSE and RHEL which includes their RAID drivers. Although could depend on model but I have read that others work if you put the controller back in ACHI mode including debian and slackware.
https://wiki.debian.org/HP/ProLiant

Alma and Rocky are binary compatible with RHEL and should work out of the box so pick the one you like the best.

1 members found this post helpful.

As far as Debian why it won't run I don't know.

For Ubuntu just because it defaults to something doesn't mean you have to do it that way. When I use it I set a root password. I create a wheel group and use that instead of sudo group. I do a bunch of different things that aren't default. With a few exceptions you can run it any way you want, just like any other distro.

I always recommend the free RHEL recompiles as the best server OS anyway if you don't want to pay for RHEL. Alma seems to have more $$$ support, so they've become my go-to recommendation over Rocky.

1 members found this post helpful.

OP did say that stability was a requirement. That being the case, I'm not sure why people keep mentioning RHEL or any of its derivatives.

OP also said:
How does RHEL fit there???

I'll reiterate that Slackware ticks all of OP's boxes.

As I posted previously RHEL and SuSE are certified by HP and both include the proprietary RAID drivers whereas slackware does not. The OP does not like SuSE.

At a minimum in order to install other distributions you need to change the BIOS for the RAID controller to ACHI mode. The OP has not mentioned whether hardware RAID is a requirement.

I have run CentOS for many many years and it has been very stable.

1 members found this post helpful.

Because RHEL and it's free clones are the most stable OS's I've ever used in ~25 years. They check every one of the OP's boxes. They're no fun for pc/laptop usage, but for servers are quite possibly the best OS on the earth, IMO.

1 members found this post helpful.

Actually Slackware is out, because it doesn't set one tick:
It's a rolling release system.
About Ubuntu:
The bricolage setting up "new" admin groups is especially what I do NOT want to do at all.All in all I'm going to check out Alpine Linux, even I'm not a big fan of bare running busybox, but everything else sounds pretty good so far. My current favourite is Rocky Linux and we'll see about Alpine.
I'll also consider the thought for Alma, I think dev $ was meant and not (client/user/enterprise) support.


Thanks so far, I'm going to update, after the holidays. Have a nice time and a good new year!

Rocky/Alma: I'd use CentOS, if it would still be downstream.

Wow, that's quite a claim... But I have to say that I sincerely feel sorry for you.
That is not factually correct. Slackware is certainly not a "rolling release system."

The latest stable version is 15.0, which was released in February. There have been regular (weekly/fortnightly) security patches and bug fixes since then, and it will continue to receive support for many years.

The previous 3 stable versions (14.2 released on 1-Jul-2016, 14.1 released on 4-Nov-2013 and 14.0 released on 19-Sep-2012) have all received regular security patches and bug fixes their entire lives... the latest all being within the last two weeks.

You seem to have made up your mind, so I won't say much more than:
Slackware has this in spades. There isn't any Linux distribution with more of it.

1 members found this post helpful.