Looking for a good server distro


Recommended Posts

I'm getting ready to update my server (uses: vbulletin, mysql, php, perl). I have Redhat on it now but since they got into Fedora, I don't think I want to use that in my server.... any suggestions? I'm looking for something easy to maintain but strong in security. Thanks.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/269495-looking-for-a-good-server-distro/
Share on other sites

I'm no Linux guru but Mandrake and Suse have always been great to me. They've got nice administration tools built in and they run rock solid.

That's just me though. I use them as a compliment to many networks. I like Mandrake for schools because it looks nice and friendly for others to use. I use Squid Proxy most times on Mandrake. Nice app!

I still want to try out Gentoo but haven't had time yet.

Either of the following would be good to use imo.

1) FreeBSD

2) Debian

3) SuSE

I never really messed around with BSD but from user-feedback and articles that I've been reading, it's obvious that BSD is the most secure thing to run on a server.

Debian is great cause of Apt. It has packages in the stable and testing mirrors that are 99.9% sure to work and you'll have strictly what you need. You install the base system and install anything afterwards with apt-get.

SuSE, well, it has a pretty installation that people enjoy looking at and it works. It's easy to setup and YaST isn't bad at all. Just make sure that the rpm's that you will be using will install on SuSE (sometimes they can be distro-specific if not mistaken).

But as far as linux distributions go, you could pretty much use almost anything as long as the package managment tool that it provides is reliable (don't need one but it sure makes life easy for admins). Apt and Portage are the two systems that I'd say are reliable as far as linux goes.

Well I used to be a UNIX guy, then a couple of years ago I was a BSD guy and now I'm a Linux guy. I've ran all kinds of servers. FreeBSD is a really fine OS for a server. There are things that are different in BSD than Linux, but its easy to distinguish. Oh yeah and I used to pretty much have to compile everything on my BSD server, but that was a couple of years ago.

Thanks all for the advise. I'm not really not a fan of compiling my own packages but I may be willing to do that if there is no other choice. It would really be nice for some of these packages to make it easier to install and upgrade. I think it would really bring Linux more into the mainstream (desktop). It would also be nice to get a distro that would keep up to date with tech instead of having to upgrade all the time to the newest version of things (or at least semi new).

It would really be nice for some of these packages to make it easier to install and upgrade. I think it would really bring Linux more into the mainstream (desktop). It would also be nice to get a distro that would keep up to date with tech instead of having to upgrade all the time to the newest version of things (or at least semi new).

585273046[/snapback]

:blink:

Odd, but I think Linux does an excellent job of what you describe. Especially when you compare it to the 'other' significant OS that is in the market. ;)

Thanks all for the advise. I'm not really not a fan of compiling my own packages but I may be willing to do that if there is no other choice. It would really be nice for some of these packages to make it easier to install and upgrade. I think it would really bring Linux more into the mainstream (desktop). It would also be nice to get a distro that would keep up to date with tech instead of having to upgrade all the time to the newest version of things (or at least semi new).

585273046[/snapback]

Most distros come with package managers that already make it easier to install. One of the most popular is APT-get for Debian.

You type apt-get install <program> and it searches the APT repositories online, finds it, downloads and then installs it for you. That's it. Type apt-get upgrade and it will search through your apps and update them (I believe it uses the RPM database on all distros that use apt-get/apt-get port. Type apt-get dist-upgrade and it will upgrade everything else including your distribution's core files.

Some other distros have Apt-get as well with their own APT repositories for that distribution, such as Fedora Core 2 and 3.

Windows isn't even that easy.

You have YUM as well, or even just normal RPM installation and a bunch of other package managers.

Any linux distro will most likely fit your needs for a server. It doesn't make much difference. Its all about freedom and choice.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned: White Box. Its just RedHat Enterprise Linux recompiled without RedHat's trademarks.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned: White Box. Its just RedHat Enterprise Linux recompiled without RedHat's trademarks.

585273277[/snapback]

But, doesn't that make it not Open Source? :rofl:

(sorry, inside joke...) ;)

Back on-topic: That is probably the best solution for handling enterprise types of apps. I think almost any flavor of Linux will work well, or the BSD option may be a worthy platform to build from, too! :yes:

But, doesn't that make it not Open Source? :rofl:

(sorry, inside joke...)  ;)

Back on-topic:  That is probably the best solution for handling enterprise types of apps.  I think almost any flavor of Linux will work well, or the BSD option may be a worthy platform to build from, too! :yes:

585273398[/snapback]

hahahaha. Yeah it doesn't matter that the source is open, because it isn't open source!

-

BSD is always a good option, especially being arguably the most secure OS on the planet.

Thanks.. I have never been able to install any BSD or Debian on my test server both had hardware incompatibilities, I believe. Although, I'm sure they would have no issues on the server but I'm not installing any server solution that I can't have on my test server. I never had any issues installing any RedHat product. I'll have to check out Whitebox, Thanks.

Most distros come with package managers that already make it easier to install. One of the most popular is APT-get for Debian.

You type apt-get install <program> and it searches the APT repositories online, finds it, downloads and then installs it for you. That's it. Type apt-get upgrade and it will search through your apps and update them (I believe it uses the RPM database on all distros that use apt-get/apt-get port. Type apt-get dist-upgrade and it will upgrade everything else including your distribution's core files.

Some other distros have Apt-get as well with their own APT repositories for that distribution, such as Fedora Core 2 and 3.

Windows isn't even that easy.

You have YUM as well, or even just normal RPM installation and a bunch of other package managers.

Any linux distro will most likely fit your needs for a server. It doesn't make much difference. Its all about freedom and choice.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned: White Box. Its just RedHat Enterprise Linux recompiled without RedHat's trademarks.

585273277[/snapback]

I'm partial to FreeBSD :-)

The main reason I like it is because it's easy to administer, and it's stable. Ports allows you to compile from source (more versatile than using binaries) while still making updating your software an easy process. The stability means that I rarely have to do anything at all once the server is up and running. Just a few updates here and there and watch the uptime. I guess I'm lazy :p

Arch linux, I'm not convinced. I use it on my desktop and it's not as stable as FreeBSD. Things tend to break too often when updating the OS. It's nice to have a workstation with the latest and greatest, but one wouldn't do the same for a server. And arch tends to be a distro that lives on the bleeding edge. Using arch is kind of like using FreeBSD-CURRENT (you'd want to use FreeBSD-STABLE for your server). I'm not saying that you can't make an arch box stable. It's just that it seems to take more work to achieve that.

Thanks.. I have never been able to install any BSD or Debian on my test server both had hardware incompatibilities, I believe. Although, I'm sure they would have no issues on the server but I'm not installing any server solution that I can't have on my test server. I never had any issues installing any RedHat product. I'll have to check out Whitebox, Thanks.

585273559[/snapback]

Debian "stable" tends to use two year old kernels for those that want something that has been tested under every possible condition. It is very conservative. A bit too conservative for my tastes.

Debian "testing" (i.e. Sarge) uses still a somewhat older kernel but it has far better hardware support than "stable". Personally, I'd consider Debian "testing" to use as a server for most operations.

Debian also has an "unstable" branch that is good for desktop use. I even find that to be rather stable but it's probably too cutting edge for something important.

If you use a debian based distro, I would go with Ubuntu. My company currently uses Ubuntu on most of our servers. The packages in the Ubuntu repository seem better and it is a little bit easier I think. The plus side of Ubuntu is that it has great auto detection of hardware and best of all, it's debian based.

If you use a debian based distro, I would go with Ubuntu.? My company currently uses Ubuntu on most of our servers.? The packages in the Ubuntu repository seem better and it is a little bit easier I think.? The plus side of Ubuntu is that it has great auto detection of hardware and best of all, it's debian based.

585283461[/snapback]

It's also from the unstable branch. Much like Knoppix, Mepis and the other Debian children.

Ubuntu is Debian. You can use whatever repositories you want. They are usually just mirrors of one another anyway. You can configure Debian to look like Ubuntu and you can configure Ubuntu to look like Debian. It's just a matter of apt-get installing a few packages or apt-get removing a few packages.

Edit:

I know this is an old post (it came up on a Google search) but now that Ubuntu uses Hoary you can't necessarily use non-Ubuntu repositories. Earlier versions of Ubuntu (that used xfree86 rather than x.org) weren't as picky.

Edited by fred666
I'm no Linux guru but Mandrake and Suse have always been great to me.  They've got nice administration tools built in and they run rock solid.

That's just me though.  I use them as a compliment to many networks.  I like Mandrake for schools because it looks nice and friendly for others to use.  I use Squid Proxy most times on Mandrake.  Nice app!

I still want to try out Gentoo but haven't had time yet.

585268351[/snapback]

Mandrake is one of the worst OS's for Server use. Its insecure and horrible.

Just my opinion.

However i have to say Redhat enterprise is good for production use, as it has a large support medium.

However, there are other distros such as freebsd and debian which are great for production use.

For a server? I'd go with debian or slackware, or even ditch linux and go with FreeBSD.

585268720[/snapback]

Good choices. I'm using Slackware at the moment. I started not to long ago using the distro, and its pretty easy to configure and to use.

Mandrake is one of the worst OS's for Server use. Its insecure and horrible.

Just my opinion.

However i have to say Redhat enterprise is good for production use, as it has a large support medium.

However, there are other distros such as freebsd and debian which are great for production use.

585300488[/snapback]

Mandrake is geared towards the desktop user and its not really insecure, no more than most distros. I wouldn't personally use Mandrake for a server. Many people use Fedora as a server distro all though its geared towards the desktop just like Mandrake.

Which sense this is a sticky I'll mention Fedora is a more bleeding edge distro than most. And it tries to be. That's good for the desktop market, not for the server market, because the apps aren't as thoroughly tested. I haven't ran into many instability issues though, but I've seen people who have from FC1 - 3.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Ford execs say they made a mistake when they replaced human engineers with AI by David Uzondu Ford recently announced that over the last three years, it's had to rehire about 350 "gray beard" engineers to mentor younger staff and reprogram diagnostic systems and AI tools that were failing to meet up to quality expectations. The company's VP of vehicle hardware engineering, Charles **** said that leaders overlooked the deep experience of veterans who survived many product cycles. **** admitted that simply replacing them with AI was a huge mistake, and that while AI is "a fantastic tool," it remains "only as good as the information you use to train it." The rehired engineers now run mandatory meetings to troubleshoot vehicles and reprogram automated engineering software and AI tools to prevent glitches before production. These technical specialists hunt for failure points before parts ever reach the plant floor, helping prevent the massive recalls and defects that previously cost the company billions as it aims to cut one billion dollars in expenses this year. In last year's JD Power Quality Survey, an annual study that measures the quality of a car during the first three months of ownership, Ford finished 10th among mainstream brands and scored below the industry average. But this year, JD Power ranked the automaker as the top mainstream brand, placing it above the likes of Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Ford attributed this massive improvement directly to the expertise of these returned engineers. Ford's realization that AI cannot magically design and test quality vehicles without senior human oversight is just the tip of the iceberg. When Careerminds looked at companies that conducted AI-driven layoffs, researchers found out that 35.6% of those companies had to rehire more than half of the employees they previously fired. Another 32.7% had to rehire between 25% and 50% of them. In 2024, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of Klarna, proudly announced that its new chatbot was doing the work of 700 full-time customer service agents. As a result, the fintech company froze hiring and cut hundreds of positions. But by mid 2025, and into 2026, Klarna was scrambling to recruit human agents again because customer satisfaction had plummeted. It turns out, while AI is very good at answering basic questions like how to check an account balance, when faced with complex customer issues that require nuance, the thing usually resorts to the unhelpful, robotic corporate jargon we all know and love.
    • Free AI in IDEs is shifting to paid models Or you know, you could just learn to actually design and code apps, use frameworks to handle the repetitive parts and not use AI at all - and voila... free for life!
    • In a sane world US antitrust laws wouldn't even allow these companies to be in the position to be subjected to EU directives. As you say, better than oligarch nothing.
    • Apple reportedly has a second-generation iPhone Fold planned for 2027 Good grief, Apple hasn't even released a first folding phone and the Apple faithful is already obsessing over the sequel? Seriously people, go out and touch grass... because this level of obsession is borderline stalkery/neurotic.
    • I checked on the IPs associated with every login and they're all mine... And whenever I get a new prompt, there is no activity to show for it. 
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      405
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      129
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!