Linux Server Distros Opinion

[sromine]

I know this question has been asked before and I have read some of the posts, but wanted to get the opinions of the tek-tip community once again....

The question basically is Debian vs. Ubuntu server, which would you choose? Details below

I am about to configure up a new linux server for the library I work for (basically LAMP stuff, Drupal, tikiwiki, etc.)....At one time, my distro of choice was Red Hat Fedora (mainly because thats what I had learned linux on)...but recently had to use Debian on an old Alpha server we installed linux on....both distros work great of course....I would probably proceed forward with Debian install and be done with it, but now Ubuntu server is being offered and it wasnt around the few times in the past when I configured up a server...I have read a few posts and they were all positive and none negative...I read that Ubuntu server install configures up a tight LAMP server right from the get go with little to no interaction, where Debian requires a little work to meld the pieces together.....with the money and support behind Ubuntu, does this make it the best server distro?

 

[sillyVM]

I like ubuntu a lot. RHEL5 requires a subscription to download packages and use their package manager (i think they do). Where Ubuntu is free. sudo apt-get install is really easy.

I can run apache, resin, vmware fine on ubuntu. I am trying to install oracle right now, but it seems to having a little bit trouble. Since oracle 10g I downloaded from oracle.com has a distro limiting stuff enabled. and i am not happy that oracle installer requires X screen to be installed.

That's why i don't like oracle so much, but we have to use it. Why can't they just make an installer work on any linux command line installation. I don't want a X screen on my server.

 

[sillyVM]

Sorry for the nag on Oracle. I am really frustrated on how to get it to work on a good solid linux enviroment. And the whole distro limiting thing is plain stupid. I can't believe they spent time coding that thing.

But back on topic, it seems like ubuntu does everything rhel does, while being completely free. But right now I dont know which big company is going to make the move first, but maybe one day they will and hopefully.

Here is a good discussion on ubuntu vs redhat

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/editorial_13

Again RHEL is good solid system, but they are also primed to make money right now, and I don't blame them for making the move. Ubuntu is right now more aiming at the desktop users, while their server is also well done, and done right.

I guess for any small company with tight IT budget, ubuntu server is truly a viable option. for example vmware runs on ubuntu with <100mb system overhead. which is truly amazing comparing to the $1000/cpu licenced vmware esx.

 

[sillyVM]

I thought Ubuntu server without the LAMP installation is a debian, what's the difference. >__<

I thought you were comparing any debian again RH/fedora.
never mind.

 

[QatQat]

The LAMP setup (linux apache mysql php) is available perfectly on Debian as well, so that is not the difference between the two.
If I had to describe Ubuntu I would call it Debian with a graphical installation and a GUI to install packages.

I personally would never replace Debian with Ubuntu, I never found Debian installer bad, and apt-get is so straightforward that it really does not need any GUI.

Yes, old Mark Shuttleworth may give support out of his very deep pockets but Debian community support is generally very good.

Stability, finally, is what Debian is all about and I would never exchange Debian proverbial stability for a prettier Desktop environment.



Cheers

QaTQat


If I could have sex each time I reboot my server, I would definitely prefer Windoz over Linux!

 

[Grenage]

Agreed, but you can't deny the good Ubuntu has done, converting so many people over to Linux. It's not a final destination, but it's a damn good stepping stone. The support base due to the size of the user base is unmatched.

But for business server use, I'd choose a Debian server, too.

Carlsberg don't run I.T. departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[sromine]

Thanks for the info....

I read somewhere else that the Ubuntu server initial LAMP installation actually installs more securely than Debian does from the get go....I believe this means that it doesnt have ports open, that it configures the LAMP pretty securely, etc....I will try and find the article that stated this for your review today....I think that is the issue that supposedly makes Ubuntu server a better install than Debian....anybody heard or read this????

 

[jkupski]

Hey SillyVM: if you want to use RHEL but do not want to pay RedHat's support feed, look into CentOS at

http://www.centos.org

 

[ndnalibi]

I'm using Fedora core - all free - on an old HPnetserver LC3 we had shelved in the store room. I'm fairly happy with it, though I had to install lampp(xampp) seperately and with a bit of work. Am I behind the times so far or is FC still a descent option?

If nothing else I relearned a lot of linux, since my last server install had been with RH7.2!

PS- I prefer command line for most administration anyways.

 

[QatQat]

Hi ndnalibi,

Fedora Core is not a bad distro at all and it is quite a funky desktop solution as well but it is not unfrequent that you get faulty packages and especially it has got a almost criminal approach to updating your kernel through the "yum update" process.

It is definitely a NO NO for a production server.

I have had Desktops with every one of the FC releases and I have had randomly broken packages in each one of them. I have had a Kernel on FC5 with shaky ALSA modules; I have problems with ip_conntrack module on FC4.

Would you build a server without guaranteed safety in your updates?


QatQat

If I could have sex each time I reboot my server, I would definitely prefer Windoz over Linux!

 

[ndnalibi]

Thanks QatQat -

Currently it's only a test server, but it will become a production server for web, mail, and FTP. I'm kinda showing the owners what's possible, currently everything is outsourced (mail ftp, etc).

Maybe, I'll look into debian or ubuntu...

 

[sromine]

Its been interesting following this discussion..I wanted to add another twist to it....

Is ubuntu a better server because of a more robust release schedule, better managed/updated package repository, etc...

also, does anyone have any direct experience of installing ubuntu server, does it in fact install a more integrated and secure LAMP right from the get go.....

 

[sillyVM]

I guess Debian (ubuntu?) should be a good choice if RHEL is not available.

I think the Ubuntu Server edition is essentially debian. It has no GUI. If you are running a server that's probably the one you want to run. The only reason I ever install a GUI is because oracle installer wants gui need input on how to not have one (1.5gbs of desktop software is no good)

And I like Debian (unbuntu server version) because it gives me much better hardware support on all my dell servers than RHEL. how ironic...yet it's not even a supported server OS by dell. I think i will be out of RHEL buisness.

 

[sromine]

I understand that Ubuntu is based upon Debian, I guess I am trying to see if it is more advantageous to install Ubuntu server, rather than what I would normally do which is just a straight Debian install....

Here is what I think the advantages might be, does anybody know if these are correct?

1) Ubuntu install a more secure LAMP server right out of the box, rather than having to put these piece by piece together with apt using normal debian....

2) Ubuntu has a more robust release schedule than straight debian....

3) The packages used by apt will come from Ubuntu maintainers and servers, which might be more up to date than straight apt debian package manager locations.....

any of the above valid points? not valid?

 

[QatQat]

I definitely do not agree with point 2.

Debian takes forever to release anything due to their quest to give something ultimately stable.

Yes, point 3 is correct, packages may not be as up to date as ubuntu but ask yourself, a server that needs constant updating would be pretty much like windoz.

My sarge install has been fine for years now and, if it does not break, don't fix it.

COncerning point 1, define what you mean by more secure.
If you are serious about your PHP coding, no out-of-the-box setup will be ever good enough.

Apache/PHP modules will always differ from user to user according to your needs so, even if ubuntu ships with a workable configuration straight out of the box, you will sure need to modify it at some stage.


QaTQat


QaTQat

If I could have sex each time I reboot my server, I would definitely prefer Windoz over Linux!