What's a minimal (for a headless home server) 64 bit distro with up to date packages?

What's a minimal (for a headless home server) 64 bit distro with up to date packages?

Should I go Arch? Or ubuntu server?

Windows 10, desu~

>arch
>server
kek

I just want a kernel, networking, ssh, samba and mono.

I run that on my pc, but I want leenoox on my server

What's funny?

I know, I know, its just that I need this to be minimal to run on shit hardware

Why? What are you running that can't run on Windows?

windows 10 core m8

Headless
256 MB RAM (128 MB free to OS) / 2 GB Storage

Headed
512 MB RAM (256 MB free to OS) / 2 GB Storage

freebsd

I don't want to turn on my pc every time I want to stream a movie to the living room, or fetch a file from my laptop

debian stable netinstall

>samba
>mono
why ?

freebsd > alpine linux > ubuntu server > arch

FreeNAS

I haven't heard of that...
Does it give you a remote PowerShell terminal?

Never tried it... Have the feeling that its going to suck at power management...

you were doing so well until that last one

>samba
I have windows pcs that will be accessing files on the server

>mono
C# > Python
I have a few projects that communicate through TCP to server programs I wrote in C#, they work amazingly well on mono

Will it have mono on its packages?
Or would I have to compile it myself?

Never heard of alpine, what is it?

>I have windows pcs that will be accessing files on the server
doesn't windows support nfs too ? samba is really shitty.

I don't know, will check

Debian stable or a BSD distro. Maybe Cent?

>Server
>updated packages
Why?

because I don't want to enjoy zero-days if I open it to the outside world...

What's is wrong with you?
Just use debian.

>minimal
Most every OS has a "minimal" option. Maybe instead of making 'what distro' threads you should start learning what a Linux is.

Debian.

Stop asking silly questions.

Why do you need bleeding edge for a server?

Ubuntu. No business uses arch. There's a reason.

Arch is a manchild distro.

Damn small Linux. If you can't run it, 1975 wants its hardware back.

Server applications not built into windows.

Really, you actually run that shit? You realize windows core is a meme, right?
Also windows 10 is not a server os.

Ubuntu XFCE. Or another flavor of ubuntu. I mean shit, they made Ubuntu MATE able to run on an Rpi2 smoothy enough and that thing runs off a fucking microSD.

Samba works well if you learn how to use it. Version 4 can act as a fully functional domain controller.

Debian testing or Ubuntu Server.

Or you can go Arch just like I did, there's nothing wrong with it and it works just fine.
Just be careful with updates, you may want to look around first to see if the recent updates ships with broken packages or not, but it's rare...

>there's nothing wrong with it
Besides the entire concept of a non-novelty distro that you have to piece together by hand from scratch, sure.

18+ site, junior
>>>/global/rules/2

>DE
>on a headless server

'no'

ubuntu server is fine, just ssh into it, harden it up, and enjoy.

Don't go Arch for server. I made the mistake in the past. Stability is way more important than up to date packages on a server.
>Slackware
Makes a good server if you don't want to update or install packages. Very easy to install and set up as a server.
>Debian netinst (non-free)
This is what I use for my headless server. It works flawlessly on anything I throw it at. It's as stable as Slackware and easy to update.
> Ubuntu server
More bloated than I would like. It needed me to install a video driver on my headless server. Not a bad option if you really want it.