Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Linux Distro Reccomendations?  
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5192 posts, RR: 33
Posted (9 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1094 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?

That'll teach you
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9113 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1093 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Thread starter):
what would you recommend?

I'd recommend the England add on pack. It's far superior.

One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineGordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 2205 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1092 times:

Slackware - all the way!

For servers it's totally unbeatable IMHO.

I have one server running Slackware that has been through about a dozen kernel upgrades, god knows how many versions/upgrades of Apache/Samba/Bind/Postfix/MySQL etc and has never missed a beat.

Currently been running for nearly 3 years without a reboot - and would have been nearly 4 if it wasn't for a power failure in the data room a few years ago.

Slackware is proper Linux - not as user-friendly as some, but as 'pure' and unmolested as you can get.  Smile

Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3012 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

I recommend Redhat Enterprise. But you have to pay for that ... so the "free clone" called CentOS (www.centos.org) is perfect. For server work it's my favorite distribution.

Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5192 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

gordon, thats why im considering slackware.
manuCH: Ill have a look at CentOS, but will probably stick to Fedora, the red hat backed project.

That'll teach you
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1050 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.

Try'em http://www.distrowatch.com


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1039 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.  Smile

We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 day ago) and read 1035 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.

User currently offlineCaptainJon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 22 hours ago) and read 1025 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!

User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (9 years 22 hours ago) and read 1021 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.

We can agree to disagree.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Linux Dual-core Support posted Sun Nov 12 2006 04:50:13 by DfwRevolution
Linux And Wireless Networking posted Sat Nov 11 2006 16:28:31 by Goldenshield
...And On The Third Day, God Created Linux posted Tue Nov 7 2006 03:52:31 by AC773
My First Linux Ubuntu Post! posted Fri Oct 13 2006 12:53:25 by F.pier
New Linux GUI : XGL posted Sun Jul 9 2006 04:32:25 by Rolfen
Installing Linux posted Wed Mar 8 2006 15:13:19 by KaiGywer
Linux Or Windows? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 15:31:36 by Dougloid
YellowDog Linux And OSX On PPC posted Wed Feb 22 2006 02:12:58 by LooneyToon
Linux And Wi-Fi posted Sun Dec 4 2005 22:58:41 by Seb146
Linux Users Unite! posted Sun Nov 27 2005 16:34:52 by UN_B732