So I am setting up a new server in place of my old Fedora 10 server. I want to make a brand new install and I want to know what Distro You think would be best for a simple server. I have heard openBSD is a great server distro however I am familiar with fedora so I might want to just install fedora 14. I am not totally sure what the pros and cons of those two are and what other Distros might be a good alternative to those two.

Any comments appreciated!

Centos/Debian/Slackware

These are linux distros most suitable for servers. You shouldn't even consider Fedora. It's a Red Hat's testing ground.

Since you have been using F10, you'll probably be most comfortable with CentOS.

2 members found this post helpful.

The Fedora 12 based 'Scientific Linux SL 6.0' was released four days ago.

It's an exact copy of RHEL 6. ( Like CentOS 6 : Not yet released.)

CentOS 5.5 http://www.centos.org/

http://distrowatch.com/index.php?dis...h=all&year=all

Go for Debian / Centos

I completely agree. I would never use Fedora for a server. Slackware/Debian/CentOS are all great options.

FWIW, I use Fedora for servers in loads of areas, and have not had a drama yet. Anywhere from Fedora 10 to Fedora 14 are still active as servers providing critical services.

If you're happy with Fedora for your servers and know what you're doing with them, then go with them again. If you've not had any problems, then why not continue to not-have-problems?

If you're after trying something new, then great, do that. If the learning curve is not a factor, then great, by all means go for it.

I second CentOS.

For a server, I think Debian would probably be best, with CentOS as my second choice.

Fedora is fine for a server, assuming you're comfortable with its update period. Many people (such as other posters here) believe that a server should have a long update cycle - that you should strive for longevity of an install, even if that means, for instance, you wind up struggling with older versions.

This is a false choice: you can achieve server-level uptimes while still updating frequently. You should, of course, test updates before applying them to a production server, but that's true no matter what frequency you prefer.

Fedora is NOT merely "Redhat's testing grounds". It's a fine distro suitable for systems where you want up-to-date versions - it's not crippled or compromised in any way. I would not hesitate to run Fedora on servers, though in fact I prefer Centos for the ones I'm currently running (for the reasons above.)

That said, there are other distros which may suit your taste - and taste and/or experience is very much a valid and dominating factor in this choice.

If you like a distro that is stable and doesn't upgrade every other day I say Slackware 13.1 or SalixOS 13.1

That's another point worth mentioning: Updates. How long after a vulnerability is found, before a patch is released? With updates available frequently, there's nothing wrong with Fedora here either. Do you have to upgrade when the new version is out? No. As I said, I'm still running Fedora 10 on some systems, and with the latest being v14, there's nothing wrong with selectively upgrading a server depending on what the demands are for you. If you need the latest and greatest packages, then choose the latest Fedora. If you don't and you just want stable and a common platform, then leave an older version around.

It can also depend on if you're into virtualising your servers. You can then migrate and upgrade with greater ease (lower cost) without sacrificing what you've got.

All in all... with the feedback given, has it yielded an answer for you that you're happy with?

But Fedora 10 is end of life for more than a year and doesn't get updates, not even security fixes. So why do you think it is safe and no problem to run an unsupported system on a server (except it is not available from the net)?

People have already mentioned CentOS, and you being familiar with Fedora, CentOS is the best deal as of now for you.

That depends on risk and effort. All servers have risks and effort to maintain. The ones that are high risk (high exposure) are the latest versions. The servers that take a little more effort to maintain / need high uptime / and are low risk / low exposure, I'm happy to keep with the version they were setup on. They've got uptimes of 250+ days, and are not exposed to the internet - hence low risk. Those that are exposed to the 'net I'll make more effort to keep updated.

Then there's everything in between - hence the range of server versions.

1 members found this post helpful.

I started to work on openSuSE (then suse) some 13 yrs ago and thus I also run all my 3 servers on same OS and am very happy with all aspects of OS.

oS offers all I need and want. No missing features.