FOR SERVER USE

FOR SERVER USE

¡¡¡¡¡THE FINAL FIGHT!!!!!!

Other urls found in this thread:

linux-magazine.com/Online/News/CentOS-Admin-Mysteriously-Missing
debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/ch04s03.html.en
developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/31/no-cost-rhel-developer-subscription-now-available/
gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>none of the above

depends 100% on the usecase you deploy...

why not

webserver

Where's Arch?

Who is retard that would install archlinux for server

Windows 98 of course

Ubuntu because that's what I'm used to.

>arch on an actual server
neets everybody

>muh unstable meem
Never broke on me

hahahhahaha you make me laugh

>baited

...

ubuntu LTS

CentOS? Isn't that the distro that almost shut down because an admin went awol and no one else had the password to the site?

Ubuntu is the most supported and is the "standard" for most Linux servers, along with RHEL/CentOS.

centos is managed by redhat lol

>DEBIAN

...

da fuck is this?

>use any version of ubuntu other than the latest release
>get none of the claimed support at all
>DoS vulnerability in 12.04 LTS Apache2 still not fixed years later

It's fixed in every supported version of Debian how the fuck are Ubuntu so shit. Stop being trend wagon motherfuckers and actually support your releases.

always had some kind of problem with debian on my home server, ubuntu just werks

Gentoo

an OS that only the most pale neckbeard uses.

>Davis holding the domain plus sole 'Founders' rights in the IRC channels makes the situation particularly difficult for the developers. Davis obviously is also in charge of donation money. In the letter: "You have long promised a statement of CentOS project funds, to this date this has not appeared."

linux-magazine.com/Online/News/CentOS-Admin-Mysteriously-Missing

Personally use ubuntu on my servers. Laptop too

Boring office stuff like spread sheets: Red Hat, CentOS
Gaming and noobs general: Ubuntu
Entry-level coding: Debian, Fedora
Reale serious coding, top-end server stuff and hacking: Arch

My last employer used Ubuntu LTS on servers and most desktops. Worked quite well.

>Debian website says you can simply copy the installation ISO to a USB and boot from there
>it's not working

Am I just too stupid for this or what?

are you doing this?

cp debian.iso /dev/sdX

I used the cp command, but not that exact one.

how do you move and rename files remotely on centos

dd if=debian.iso of=/dev/disk/by-id/... bs=1M conv=fdatasync

That wont work. You need to mount the device first.

>No *BSD

Nope.

Wrong

You might have forgotten to sync the write. Either use "sync" or this:

debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/ch04s03.html.en

Centos are not managed by Redhat.

In the past, it only managed by communities with no relation at all with Redhat.
Or rather, it's in hostile situation (trademark issues, etc)

For now, things are improving as Redhat staff do contribute to the project.
Redhat also no longer in hostile position.
But still, it's a communities project.

Centos:
You got SELinux works out of box.
Software version too old and lack of many useful software.

Debian:
You got bunch of software in repo.
Lack of SELinux or AppArmor

Ubuntu:
You got AppArmor (optional, if you use it)
Some specific software you use might be no longer maintained in next version and there's no easy alternative.

>Software version too old and lack of many useful software.

Such as?

Hello, my name is Rakeesh.

Why do you fail to incluse Redhat, the most used server OS in the WORLD? I know centOS is the "libre" RHEL version, but for the best result you must always go for the original!

Good evening to you.

hahaha, enjoy your bricked partition

CentOS:

systemd
SELinux
yum

Winner.

developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/03/31/no-cost-rhel-developer-subscription-now-available/

Pretty much any new trend in server software for the last 2 years. eg: redis, mongodb, mariadb, etc.
Some of them provide their own repos, so all hope is not lost though.

>not gentoo
kys

>not using fedora

For me it will always be CentOS.

CentOS's release cycle is cripplingly slow. You end up with extremely outdated packages that are nominally security patched. I'd only use it for very simple servers which you expect will barely be touched for years.

>ding, top-end server stuff and hacking: Arch
die

noob who cant even install arch using the COMMAND LINE detected

installing unestable SO in server , good job hacker

they're all pretty much the same

i prefer debian though

The only valid options are
- RHEL / CentOS (maybe scientific Linux and Oracle's distribution too)
- SUSE / openSUSE
- Debian (but sucks imo)

>wanting many updates and probably unstable software

>Ubuntu
>not obviously superior Debian

>short release cylcles
>probably unstable software
>many updates

This

How is fedora not good for serious server shit?

>Debian (but sucks imo)
Elaborate

centos, or more realistically, RHEL.

People who use ubuntu on servers deserve to be hung drawn and quartered. Absolutely disgusting, learn a real linux you losers.

>real linux
Define "real linux"

now this nigger knows what he's talking about.

>Define "real linux"
I'm for real nigga

gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html

Debian has been 100% libre out of the box since version 7.0.

hang yourself first

But they offer a non-free repo, so Stallman and his buddies threw a shit fit like the unrealistic children they are.

I run Debian on mostly everything, so I would naturally side with it, but CentOS has the advantage of possible jobs because of RHEL.

Yes, you are too stupid. Install Ubuntu before you hurt yourself.

CentOS or any RedHat derivative really. Debian is a close second. Ubuntu I wouldn't really recommend but I guess if you know how to fix shit... and want to waste time fixing it... then go for it. At that point use Gentoo so you can at least be a good memer.

...

Agree fully. But i use ubuntu inside a vm for mumble.

>RedCucks

absolutely disgusting

God fucking dammit. You have to learn about particular use cases.

I don't think everybody here use their servers to host a web page. There are different distros with different purposes for each situation.

That said, I didn't see a source based distro around for a custom, minimal installation.

Seriously, this mentality of "one thing" for everything is exactly the toxic mentality we should avoid, and I blame systemd developers.

arch is intended to be a hobby OS, not a real production OS. that is it's stated goal ffs - hobby. haven't any of these neets read the arch way?

Really? I could have sworn I did a "sudo yum install mariadb" on CentOS a month ago and it worked.

Maybe I'm just a forgetful old man....

>toxic mentality
what did she mean by this

only a retarded sysadmin uses ubuntu.

a person who really knows how to use GNU/Linux.

Probably, given that mariadb exists for a long time already.
But if you want latest feature like wsrep, you'll need to add mariadb repo.

If you need minimal installation, maybe you should consider container.

Bundle your software and dependency in your cloud provider format (or make your own), specify how many instance to run, then deploy it.

>intended to be a hobby OS
> ( I ) haven't ... read the arch way

It is your duty to make it stable.

It's is a hobby for people new to linux, they have fun installing DE's and """Obscure""" WM playing with AUR's bleeding edge, etc.
I know for some Sup Forumsays / Sup Forumsaymers is a /g's neckbeards/hipster thing, but arch community is huge, even google+ is full of tilling terminals, it is a pretty normie distro cause is really easy to manage packages and pretty straightforward wiki and forum.

digital ocean, rackspace, ramnode, ghandi, linode, etc. offers arch as VPS, arch as server is a thing.

if you can set and forget and also get security updates every once a while, i think it makes for a good server OS

>digital ocean

pretty sure they stopped that because it was such a pain to deal with the rolling release, not to say you can't still install it on your vps, but it's not so easy as to say it is in their dropdown menu when spinning new servers up

don't use any of the others, but my other smaller vps provider does have the arch iso available, so eh

FreeBSD

thx for putting me on a watchlist

I'm currently running Debian with apache, samba, and openvpn. Works great. All of these listed in the thread work great if you know what you're doing. You can make any Linux distro into any other Linux distro with the right knowledge, effort, and time.

I like Debian because it's a ready to use distro with long supported releases and installs easily with fairly minimal packages. It allows me to skip a lot of installation nonsense (re: time spent for minimal returns), then leaves me to set up everything else on my own. It's a nice middle ground between putting together your own distro, and using Ubuntu.

But, everyone has their own preferences. Try a couple out in a virtual machine, and see how you like administering them. That's what I do when I'm considering different server software. Play around in a closed environment with different options.

tbhfam RHEL-based is your best bet on servers (Fedora or CentOS). after that FreeBSD. and finally probably Ubuntu or Debian.

>tbhfam
Post disregarded.

>pajeet subhumans
>ghandi quote

stay mad
the manlets have won

is everything unpopular for unhygienic people

Centos is not user friendly.
Ubuntu has frequent updates.Also canonical botnet.
Debian is what I am using. Has good community support.
Arch is unstable, a ticking time bomb for a production environment.
Gentoo is the best choice IF is you have the knowledge and time to customize it properly.

Running a rolling-release distro on a server? Wtf? There are enough other server-suitable distros if you want your own setup.

arch is for people who aren't smart enough to install or run gentoo properly

no using kali linux for hacking kys

Windows server

Windows servers is the most used server os in the world

CentOS because that's the only one I've tried and I don't know the differences :^)

Ur so dumb

Its a testing distro for red hat...

what is stability