Looking for a good server distro

[White Cuban]

not sure if i already posted, if i didn't FREEBSD!, it wasen't fun in start, but after i got the hang, god, its bad ass. such a powerful tool.

though dangerous in the hands of a Geek.

[Popcorned1]

Ubuntu Server (Y)

[debtboy]

I guess any distro could be used, as most of the

server software will be the same anyway,

(possibly even the same release)

That being said, I'm currently using openSUSE for the following:

File Server (samba)

Web/FTP (apache)

Print Server (cups)

VNC (tightVNC)

Telnet/SSH

etc...

[ootput]

Strictly for home use, I use pfsense for gateway, and openfiler for filesharing (freenas was an option, but it's samba performance does not even compare.)

[Subject Delta]

Personally I would go with CentOS or Fedora for a server

[Orien]

Personally I would go with CentOS or Fedora for a server

Fedora should not be used on production servers. Either use CentOS if you're most familiar with RedHat or FreeBSD/Debian if you're more knowledgeable in that area.

[breed]

Fedora should not be used on production servers. Either use CentOS if you're most familiar with RedHat or FreeBSD/Debian if you're more knowledgeable in that area.

Especially since you are starting from a Redhat perspective, that would make moving to anything Debian-based a little more difficult (not much besides package mgmt, update differences). Your choices are probably Redhat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora and CentOS. CentOS 5.4 would be the most logical choice. In my opinion, I like using yum to update versus apt-get, and I was able to update my server recntly from CentOS 4.8 to 5.4 with minimal pain and a single reboot (after downloading about 780MB of packages).

The biggest question you have to answer is what is the server doing? Public facing servers (web, dns, mail) you "could" make a case for using FreeBSD over Linux, but it really comes down to your specific server config dictating your security.

[lovexp]

Ubuntu Server 10.04,It's very easy.haha

[n_K]

Haven't used White Box in a while but back when I did used to use it; I liked it.

Install was crap though because one ISO was corrupt on all the download links so I had to burn about 20 CDs with the packages it had errors on, that wasn't fun.

IIRC white box has been abandoned, WB is on 3 R2 and RHEL is on 5...

[c3ntury]

FreeBSD, Ubuntu or Debian.

[PaulCrossley]

I would definitly choose FreeBSD over the others, followed by Debian, then either Ubuntu or Slack. Whenever we set up for security in situations like yours I tend to recommend the FreeBSD over the others.

[VII7]

Gento, Arch, maybe Debian or FreeBSD - definitely not Ubuntu Server (which shines only as a desktop distribution).

[kiwi89]

Debian/Ubuntu work well. I'm using a Ubuntu server at work and it seems to be fine. I just use it for file sharing, web hosting, ftp and ssh.

But I'm sure that using a Red Hat or a CentOS server would be better if you were more comfortable with that.

[xxxxxx.xxxxxx]

I currently run 3 home servers, all three were running FreeBSD and i cant recommend that enough to do it justice. It is a great system for ease of use, updating and peace of mind.

However on my testing server (specs in my sig) I have just installed Ubuntu 10.10 server on. The reasons for this are simply because all my home systems use Ubuntu 10.10, its based off Debian and the apt system which is somewhat similar to FreeBSDs port system. Debian has been tried and tested as a good server system so I can't see why Ubuntu, with some careful configuration cant be alike. :shiftyninja:

[ebest97]

My favorite free server distro's would be CentOS and Fedora. If you're willing to pay go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

[QcR]

Security : BSD's

Community and "easyness" : Ubuntu or CentOS

That's my opinion, i prefer Ubuntu !

[antdev]

Well, hello! I just joined here, lovin' it.

Well, I'm a server admin on a server in the EC2. My server runs Ubuntu Server for the main reason of simple usability.

And in the terms of simple usability..

• Not having to compile every piece of software.
  
• Simple automated package installer (Aptitude)
  
• Pre-Configured Package Installer (For Web server Components)
  

Also, what strikes me about Ubuntu server is the amount of support you can find for it, not so like FreeBSD. What I mean by this is canonical, can you think of another commercially backed Linux Server Distribution?

AntDevelopment

[junkie]

I have setup a small office server just recently. Migrating everything from Windows 2008 R2. It was a success, and everyrthing went quite smoothly.

Server roles:

- FTP server

- File sharing (samba)

- HTTP server

- MySQL server

- CVS server

- Automatic daily backups (rdiff-backup)

- SSH server for management

I went with Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS, it was a good choice. It outperforms Windows Server by lightyears. A (re)boot takes just a couple of seconds (!), the whole OS takes up just a little over 1 GB, and uses a ridiculously low amount of RAM when idle.

[vhane]

Well, hello! I just joined here, lovin' it.

Well, I'm a server admin on a server in the EC2. My server runs Ubuntu Server for the main reason of simple usability.

And in the terms of simple usability..

• Not having to compile every piece of software.
  
• Simple automated package installer (Aptitude)
  
• Pre-Configured Package Installer (For Web server Components)
  

Also, what strikes me about Ubuntu server is the amount of support you can find for it, not so like FreeBSD. What I mean by this is canonical, can you think of another commercially backed Linux Server Distribution?

AntDevelopment

Support as in documentation? FreeBSD has always been lauded for their handbook.

[Shining Arcanine]

I have setup a small office server just recently. Migrating everything from Windows 2008 R2. It was a success, and everyrthing went quite smoothly.

Server roles:

- FTP server

- File sharing (samba)

- HTTP server

- MySQL server

- CVS server

- Automatic daily backups (rdiff-backup)

- SSH server for management

I went with Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS, it was a good choice. It outperforms Windows Server by lightyears. A (re)boot takes just a couple of seconds (!), the whole OS takes up just a little over 1 GB, and uses a ridiculously low amount of RAM when idle.

Having been in ##freebsd and #ubuntu on freenode, I can say quite confidently that FreeBSD support is better than Ubuntu support. The FreeBSD community understands how their OS works while the Ubuntu community usually has no clue. You can always tell how good support for an OS is based on the extent to which the community can answer in questions that involve topics like compiling the latest software from upstream.

[Gerowen]

I run my personal server using Debian. It's been very stable and reliable.

Family Website: http://adams-family.homeip.net:8001

I know my web design skills are pretty bad, but at a technical level, the operating system has been very functional and reliable.

[Shining Arcanine]

Those interested in running a server might want to look at these articles:

http://labs.mwrinfos...ory_protection/

http://labs.mwrinfos...nto_the_kernel/

They only consider 5 distributions, but they are somewhat enlightening on the difference in security between hardened distributions and regular ones.

[medium_pimpin]

Linux Mint Server

[Royalty]

Look @ this: http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/coffee-lounge/157591-favorite-distro-server-users-2010-a.html

[olger901]

If you'd like to go for a server, then go for stability and a proper and long supported distribution. My personal recommendation would be to go either Debian or Ubuntu LTS