Red pill me on CentOS

Is it worth using for my web server? Or should I stick to Ubuntu?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ZvJraITtpLw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Litterally who

I thought it was the most widely used for web servers? Howcome noone shills for it on here? Does anyone do anything productive?

Nah m8, in order to be productive, you need to install Gentoo.

It's a great server OS. It's literally RHEL, just without their support stuff. That said, I can confirm that it's shit on Desktops and laptops, and since that's what people are actively using and shitposting on, nobody talks about it.

I just tried it. Its not the worst by any means.

But even with yum, RPM is still pretty retarded. As I learned from trying to install Ceph.

It needs a full repository configuration file to grab external packages cause it can't into tool managed overlays and needs a plugin 'cause it can't into prioritizing patched packages otherwise? Feels like 13 years ago.

This. Used to host a small minecraft server back in the good ol days of being an autistic virgin.

Easily set it up as a service and you could boot up and never worry.

It's for poorfag pirates, just buy a rhel license

RHEL licenses are free for home/dev use now.

Take it from someone who has run production systems on both RHEL/Centos and Ubuntu, stick with Ubuntu.

You probably were joking, but this might be my approach after poking around in yum and seeing how silly it still is.

Or go with something debian-based.

And if you need to store a lot of data, it'll work great for that too because it defaults to XFS

Why would you use ubuntu instead of debian?

Ah nice, so there's literally no reason to use the fag versions any more

I'm installing gentoo now
Ask me anything
youtu.be/ZvJraITtpLw

Can you elaborate on why its best to stick to ubuntu?

CentOS is good but personally I'd just install Ubuntu LTS Server and leave it at that. I'm much more familiar with the Ubuntu/Debian tools.

Because Ubuntu has a predictable release cycle and LTS support. Build your server and you know that it will be stable until the LTS is EOL and to date, an easy upgrade to the next LTS.

Debian is a bit all over the place in regards to LTS and schedule. These things matter.

Consider it a difference of 1000 cuts, they might seem trivial individually but they add up. RHEL has gotten a lot better but it still has some eccentricities.

Most significantly Ubuntu inherits the "Debian way" such as the rc-style for apache configuration and some nice tools for managing complex apache configs. Where Redhat sticks to the big fat config file method and a shitty gui.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm experienced with it. Probably able to install it by heart and such things actually, [though I haven't reinstalled Gentoo in years.]
Ask me anything, eh.

Figures I'll stll go check how Ubuntu server looks before that, but CentOS' yum is really just too bad. (The more I poke at how it does things in configs and the CLI, the more I don't like it.)

>Figures I'll stll go check how Ubuntu server
I think they now merged everything into just ubuntu?

Thankfully, whenever RHEL/CentOS gets a new version (many years into the future most likely), They will most likely use Fedora's new dnf, which has replaced yum over there.

Ubuntu-server/-desktop/-mate etc are all meta packages so you can morph any install of Ubuntu into any other variety, but the server installer is distinct and preferable to use for server usage. It doesn't install desktop environment and has setup for common services.

Also reminds me, Redhat/Centos have the most god-awful installers holy shit they suck.

>most god-awful installers holy shit they suck.
Elaborate

Go get the Centos netinst and install it in a VM now. I will have Ubuntu, FreeBSD and OpenBSD installed before you've finished.

alpine is better in my imho

I've done it several times. Not sure on the Ubuntu part, but you may be right on the BSDs.

Also, why is the time a big deal? It's a server OS. You shouldn't really be reinstalling all that much.

i was surprised how popular alpine's docker repo was

Hm, from the docs dnf looks considerably better. I might have to try that one on fedora.

I did minimal and it was quick and easy. Fairly decent installer IMO.

I use it for work. My clients use either CentOS or RHEL, and since the two have interchangeable packages I can use CentOS to troubleshoot. I also have used it on the desktop in the past and, in fact, have a CentOS 7 machine siting in storage that I used as my daily driver complete with Skype, Steam, and other sundries.

Like I said, it's a death of 1000 cuts. Each cut is trivial, but 1000? Fuck that shit. Don't let me stop you from finding out the hard way but OP was asking for advice. I have twenty years experience running Unix and Linux production systems, take the advice.

Fun fact: I think attempts to use yum now just go to dnf anyway on Fedora.

>pirates
underrated shitpost

really? Didn't know that. Guess I'll be downloading a copy tonight.

I've had the exact opposite experience. Been running Red Hat in production since RH 7.1 Seawolf back in 2002 and have never had a problem. With one company I worked for one of the guys talked a manager into moving to Ubuntu; worst mistake ever. After 6 months of fucking around trying to get everything going we rolled back to CentOS 5 and shit just worked.

Pretty much what I'd expect from a redhat shop full of certified pajeets.

except I've only worked with Pajeet's once, at AmEx, and back then there were only a handful in my department. My group was in charge of standing up every single Linux and Solaris server there and it was all RHEL.

Whatever you say pal. But Linux is Linux, if you can't get it to work regardless go back to your pajeet sweatshop.

Debian has a few fundamental differences from everything else, my beef is primarily with runlevels (pre-systemd). With anything that ain't Debian-based you have working runlevels that typically adhere to LSB if not SysV 3 and 4's runlevels; with Debian and it's children you don't. I know that if I need to be in runlevel 3 on console I can't have that in Debian based distros because Debian treats rl 2-5 exactly the same (X11 desktop), breaking LSB. If I need console without X anywhere else it's init 3, including most Unix distributions (System V, AIX, Solaris, *BSD, etc).

That plus a number of enterprise applications simply don't support Ubuntu or any Debian derivative for that matter. I'm talking shit like SAS, SAP, Oracle Database, Change Guardian, etc that are only supported on RHEL, SLES, or Oracle Linux.

Install Gentoo

>That plus a number of enterprise applications simply don't support Ubuntu or any Debian derivative for that matter. I'm talking shit like SAS, SAP, Oracle Database, Change Guardian, etc that are only supported on RHEL, SLES, or Oracle Linux.

I.e. extortionately priced, poor quality "enterprise" software that only exists because C-levels are gullible.

Do you really think there's a viable open source alternative to SAP or SAS?

oh, what... you gonna pull R or Oodoo out ya asshole??? yeah, good luck convincing anyone to use some shit like that at a non-poorfag shop.

It works fine on desktops.
Source: used it at work for like 7 years at an old job.

I've only ever used SAP once, it was a shitshow and was technically hosted by a poorfag company (we had enter details into their SAP instance, we didn't use it internally)

Australia and SAP don't tend to mix
PeopleSoft though, we've got that coming out of our collective asses.

oh yeah, there is not a single open source package that does file integrity monitoring as well as Change Guardian. I know, I've tried to find a replacement for it but nothing even approaches CG for how good it works.

>PeopleSoft

Jesus... is that still a thing???!!! I remember it was all the rage back in the late 90's but haven't heard it so much as mentioned since... maybe 2002-ish.

That's a pretty arbitrary list of problems that are trivial to work around, in fact the rc issue you had would never even have appeared on my annoyance radar. Also having spent quite a lot of time on Solaris, AIX, Irix and Tru64, it is Redhat that is the weirdo in differentiating X on runlevel 2 and 3.

On Debian you simply wouldn't have XDM or whatever installed anyway, or even have goddamn xserver with GDM on your server. Fuck redhat sucks.

Also that list of enterprise bullshit sucks too, and I know they all work fine on Debian etc it's just that their pajeet force doesn't.

>On Debian you simply wouldn't have XDM or whatever installed anyway, or even have goddamn xserver with GDM on your server. Fuck redhat sucks.
You do realize you can install Redhat (or CentOS) with a minimal install, right? As in, without X?

As can Debian/Ubuntu, in fact that's the default.

exactly. I got a little confused because he sounded like he was pissed off that redhat can't install without xserver, when clearly this is not the case. All major distros, Debian, Fedora, Redhat/CentOS, Ubuntu, and I think OpenPepe, offer both the main desktop spins, as well as a minimal option.

No. Debian doesn't differentiate between runlevel 2-5; all of them starts the X server and everything else exactly the same way.

Red Hat/CentOS, Suse, and pretty much every other distro that adheres to LSB is some way has 2 as CLI multi-user without networking or fs exported, 3 is multi-user CLI with networking available and fs exported, 4 is undefined, and 5 is multi-user w/networking, fs exports, and X running. In this way it's similar to various Unix distros, except most of them have runlevel 4 as user definable.

The list of enterprise packages I posted wasn't meant to be exhaustive, just the stuff I've personally had to stand up and work with that I could think of off the top of my head that didn't support Debian or it's derivatives. I can only think of one enterprise application that actually ran on Debian and that's Layer7's XML Gateway virtual appliance, which ran on Debian... and IIRC the Zen load balancer virtual appliance we used on that same SOA project also ran on Debian.

>IRIX

Pic related, I'm also an old IRIX head. Somehow I missed that in my reply here