Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4992 posts, RR: 38 Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 748 times:
Im considering upgrading my home server, which is currently running Mandrake 10.1. I upgraded the laptop a few months back, which was also running 10.1. I chose Ubuntu after falling out with the Madriva site, which did not seem to offer a free download.
So what would anyone recommend? Its going to be used as a server, with samba, apache, mysql and SSH, ftp and vncservers all running also.
Im leaning towards Fedora or slackware at the moment, mandriva have been dropped, and ubuntu seem to be too much of a desktop OS, the install doesnt offer enough customisation options for my liking.
So, whats everyone running and what would you recommend?
MigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 704 times:
I would recommend Ubuntu. It rocks, easy setup and great support. One does not have to be a Linux guru to run it. Most recent distros have a live-CD version that allows a user to test drive that version without any commitment. LiveCDs are for also testing hardware compatibility as well.
SuSE 10.0, Ubuntu 5.10, and Mandriva 2006 all offer live-CDs with the full install product.
Wukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1013 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 693 times:
I'm partial to Fedora, mainly since I've been running flavors of RedHat all the way back to .99 Alpha, and have just kinda' grown with it.
The only thing that pisses me off about it is that each new rev comes with some new "neat" utility packages that do nothing but bulk the system up. I prefer to edit just about every config in their respective textfiles, or script it across machines. I don't want a few gig default installation, but that's what I've been getting of late. I think that kinda' sucks.
Slackware is a close second for me, but it seems that Slackware systems require just a bit more attention and tweak-time, which can become an issue when you're running farms of bunches of servers on mixed hardware. Fedora seems to play more uniformly across the board from quad Xeon procs to old PIIs. Just my personal observation.
When it's all mostly GNU based, it just becomes a matter of preference... Sort of like Windows, and do you like the newer XP start menu / desktop, or do you do what I do and instantly switch to "classic view".
I've heard that Ubuntu is pretty cool, but I haven't had the time to install it on anything. You also have your SuSE fanclubs, etc.
So all in all, no real recommendations, just a few comments on my experiences. The best recommendation is to go with what you're comfortable with and is stable enough for what you want it to do. Gee, I'm really helpful.
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3095 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 689 times:
I personally find I haven't been all that impressed with Fedora. I find it a bit restrictive, and the RPM package management system is a joke. If the package you want is in one of the standard repositories you're probably ok with yum, otherwise it's hit or miss whether it will work.
My preference is for Gentoo. The basic installation has almost nothing, so you can put on just what you want/need with no extra junk. Plus, you can find almost anything you want in the Portage tree. If you run into problems, there are a lot of people in the Gentoo forums that are genuinely interested in helping.
CaptainJon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 679 times:
Debian. You can install Woody without much difficulty if you know about your computer. You don't need to install X and once its installed correctly (the hardest part), apt-get is your best friend forever!
Wukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1013 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 675 times:
Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 7): My preference is for Gentoo. The basic installation has almost nothing, so you can put on just what you want/need with no extra junk.
That's exactly what I liked about way-old RedHat (anything pre 4.2).
The problem with Gentoo in its current state is that you pretty much have to customize every installation. That's great if you're building a server or two, but when you're dealing with high 10's to hundreds of installations, it gets a bit tiring when this client needs this, and this other client needs that, and most of your day is spent compiling things that are already default in other distros.
I'm fine with building my personal server from scratch, but if I had to do that for every client machine, sleep would be a rare thing. I have plenty of co-los that run Gentoo, but each client only has a couple of machines that have a couple of guys working a full work week babysitting them (don't look at me, I didn't hire these dolts). I don't have that option.
It's sacrificing extraneous garbage for a more restricted and personalized install. I can see both sides of it.