Which linux distribution you should choose for server?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.redhat.com
devuan.org/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Debian or CentOS

You can't go wrong with any Debian based one.

centos

or debian if you have a machine with architecture other than x86.

CENTOS or debian

i have tried CentOS but dont unterstand why some configs not exist anymore like /etc/network/interfaces, its in something like /etc/sysconfig/... but why?

Arch. Not even meme-ing. It's minimal so you only install what you actually need. No bloat opening up for potential vulnerabilities.

Debian works for me.

>bleeding-edge distro for a server

>It's minimal so you only install what you actually need. No bloat opening up for potential vulnerabilities.
>I use Sup Forums buzzwords without knowing what they mean

Got money, RHEL.
Else, Debian.

Not a problem.
Microsoft QC are worst than Arch, but some people still use Windows Server.

Got money, RHEL.
Else, CentOS (redhat without branding and some costumer service package)

/etc/network/interfaces is the Debian way. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ is the Fedora/CentOS way. Read the Networking Guide at docs.redhat.com to learn how it works.

FreeBSD

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

so each disto has it own way to choose where and how configs are written or is it dependent on the network management software in this case?

PostgreSQL

You should use a BSD, but CentOS is pretty good.

you can't be serious

>wanting to have to reboot ever 10 days for a kernel update

>FreeBSD
If you know what you gonna do, I agree.

Most will try to stick to the style of one of the major distros. It's a pain in the ass going between systems.

I wasted like half a day once because all of the Rasbian documentation was out of date and they started using some dhcp daemon shit that completely ignored the network interfaces config.

I generally stay away from red hat stuff because I got to comfy with the way debian did things

>minimal
>don't know what is net install or how configure it

Yes. Especially the major one such as RedHat, Debian, Gentoo.

If you use NetworkManager, you can ignore those setting though.
And it's all the same across any distro.
But afaik, nobody use NetworkManager for servers as it focus on dynamic network config.
Servers are on static network.

Freebsd so you don't have to deal with systemd trash

Slackware or a derivitive. No systemd.

nigga you need to check yourself

this. stable, great docs and pf is how firewalls should work.

Ubuntu 8.04

Debian or red hat based.

debian unless you don't enjoy using outdated glibc versions

opensuse leap
for server and desktop

Literally 1 ubuntu mention, why is it worse than centos or debian by Sup Forums?
>currently using it as a samba server only

Debian Stable

Nobody uses arch on business servers. Nobody.

Parabola, Arch without the botnet.

> CENTOS or debian

This.

These distributions do everything for you without holding your hand. They're balanced between "it just works" -usability and still letting you do whatever you want.

If you don't like systemd, just go for FreeBSD instead.

Has anyone used devuan as a server os ?
I need to install another server soon and i'd like to hear some opinions about this before using it.

devuan.org/

I run OpenBSD on mine

Why the hate for an arch server? Just because it's not a common choice? What's wrong with keeping your server's packages up to date?

even gnewsense

Servers are commonly used with a "fire-and-forget" type of administration meaning that you set everything up once and it just works forever.
Arch is the completely opposite of that.

>ancient shitposting
what year is it

You can just choose not to update it, then. You'll still have a lightweight server running only the processes that are necessary for the server.

>that meme responses

using arch for my companies owncloud and OPSI Server, works way better than centOS/debian that break on every big update.

centos, debian, ubuntu server

>Hating systemd
Did you know you, systemd can set limit memory and cpu usage for each (or group of) service started.
Systemd use cgroup to set the policy.

Debian's pretty solid. If you don't like that then maybe openSUSE?

...

centos is the most used
debian is great for that job too
an arch dev said that it is possible to use it for server -- not recommend it though

every distro has a minimal edition which you can build upon

OP said linux, otherwise BSDs are great option as well

only needed updates for servers are security patches

FreeNAS