john_c_1984 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Hi, I used to be a member of this forum a few years ago but forgot my username and password so created a fresh. I went to SO for a while but then I miss the general conversations you get in a proper forum. Anyway, I have had a dig around in this forums history and cannot see any threads directly related to which are peoples prefered production server os. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10-things/10-differences-between-linux-and-bsd/ I am currently deliberating between linux and bsd but cannot choose. I currently have a handfull of servers running Ubuntu 12 lts, however at the time of choosing Ubuntu i was greener than grass in the world of developing and the decision making process, which was most popular on google search. Is freebsd dead dying? As a production server all i am looking for is speed & stability in running a JAMP setup (the J being java). I do some work with with eZ Publish to which their recomendation is Debian 7 (https://confluence.ez.no/display/EZP52/Requirements) but then I know people working with eZ who live by freeBSD. What are people opinions and why? (but then you read articles like this http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/the-current-state-of-freebsd/) Edited February 5, 2014 by john_c_1984 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 BSD and Linux are two completely different beasts. After working with BSD for the last 2.5 years with my previous employer, Im happy that I'm back in the world of Linux. The only thing BSD had going for it was proper jails, but Linux nails this nowadays with LXC and Docker. As for a distro, If you want stable, Debian is always a nice choice for a server. Ubuntu is a desktop distro IMO. If you like mucking around with stuff, use something like Gentoo/Funtoo or Arch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imageek Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I went to SO for a while but then I miss the general conversations you get in a proper forum. Yeah, the same as me. I worked hard to build up a status on there, and then started to get random questions locked. Even though they were on topic. The rules on that places are getting worse. I asked them to delete my account and I left. Although it's still a value place when I need to Google a problem. Anyway, sorry to take it off topic. Back on topic. I pretty much prefer Linux. I used BSD back in the days, and I guess I use it for development seen as I'm a mac user. But, for production Debian wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatov Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Debian is by far the best Linux distribution for servers. Ubuntu is too bugged to be used as a server (and even as a desktop, imho). Additionally, it has been poorly developed and strongly displeasing Linux and Open Source community in general. Richard Stalman officially repudiated and discouraged people from using Ubuntu, due to their recently privacy break issues and default installation of spywares. Edited February 6, 2014 by renatov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_c_1984 Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Although it's still a value place when I need to Google a problem. It is good for a quick fire answer if you are too swamped to dig around for the answer yourself, even if no answer comes from the responses you get a general feel and know what to query the googlebots. Their ranking/ pointing system i think really gets people hooked on replying as fast as possible, which is great for me Yea, i am getting little smirks here and there when i say to people i am running ubuntu as a servers.. it was making me wonder. Debian does seem to a be taking the lead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmola Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Debian is by far the best Linux distribution for servers. Ubuntu is too bugged to be used as a server (and even as a desktop, imho). Additionally, it has been poorly developed and strongly displeasing Linux and Open Source community in general. Richard Stalman officially repudiated and discouraged people from using Ubuntu, due to their recently privacy break issues and default installation of spywares. I prefer redhat/centos/amazonlinux for server distros. I don't think that Debian is "by far" the best server distro, but I have used it, and I find it a good option, even if it's not my goto distro. With that said, I've always thought of ubuntu as a contender for people wanting linux workstations, and most of the people using ubuntu went in that direction because they want linux as their workstation OS. I think you also do both Ubuntu and Debian a disservice when you don't acknowledge that Ubuntu is built upon the bones of Debian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_c_1984 Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) amazonlinux Really? Supporting the devil there... I do know a few who prefer centOS. Never used it before, are there any key differences to that and Debian? Edited February 7, 2014 by john_c_1984 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I know enough to get by as far as setting up ftp accounts, svn, irc, subdomains, pushing files around, little bit of shell scripting, etc.. so I am by no means an expert, especially concerning core stuff..but as far as doing day-to-day "user" stuff.. IMO there really isn't much of a difference between what you choose. For example, centOS vs. Debian.. true story.. we used Debian on one of our servers at work at one point in time, and when IT migrated to new servers, they moved to centOS. I didn't even notice until many months later. I guess my point is, don't get too hung up on all this stuff. It's like trying to pick the perfect car. Sure, one might be a gas guzzler and another may barely go above 50mph, but virtually any car you choose will get you from point A to point B. The rest is fluff and personal preference and dependent on personal needs. Unfortunately, you won't really get a feel for personal preference stuff unless you dive in and give it a try. So IMO I think the best practical advice that can be given for actually moving forward, is make sure whatever you pick has a well supported, robust community and development team. You don't want to pick something only 1 or 2 people are using, or that nobody has released updates on in years. From there.. aside from weeding out obvious stuff (e.g. avoid a distro (like Ubuntu) that focuses on desktop/gui shit if you're looking for a server).. just flip a coin, write them down on paper and pull one out of a hat, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnoTheDev Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I know enough to get by as far as setting up ftp accounts, svn, irc, subdomains, pushing files around, little bit of shell scripting, etc.. so I am by no means an expert, especially concerning core stuff..but as far as doing day-to-day "user" stuff.. IMO there really isn't much of a difference between what you choose. For example, centOS vs. Debian.. true story.. we used Debian on one of our servers at work at one point in time, and when IT migrated to new servers, they moved to centOS. I didn't even notice until many months later. I guess my point is, don't get too hung up on all this stuff. It's like trying to pick the perfect car. Sure, one might be a gas guzzler and another may barely go above 50mph, but virtually any car you choose will get you from point A to point B. The rest is fluff and personal preference and dependent on personal needs. Unfortunately, you won't really get a feel for personal preference stuff unless you dive in and give it a try. So IMO I think the best practical advice that can be given for actually moving forward, is make sure whatever you pick has a well supported, robust community and development team. You don't want to pick something only 1 or 2 people are using, or that nobody has released updates on in years. From there.. aside from weeding out obvious stuff (e.g. avoid a distro (like Ubuntu) that focuses on desktop/gui shit if you're looking for a server).. just flip a coin, write them down on paper and pull one out of a hat, etc. Totally agree. We have a load of centOS servers. We've also had RedHat, Fedora, Debian, etc, and for the things I do with them, which is similar to .josh, I can't tell the difference half the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzman1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I don't know why you advise people to avoid using Ubuntu as a server. Don't forget, Ubuntu is Debian-based Linux system and the server version is very, very close to Debian server. Personally, don't use it but I couldn't say it's a bаd choice. Whatever OS you want to choose to use - Linux, BSD (apple), Windows or something else, you need strong knowledge on it to be in serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatov Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) I don't know why you advise people to avoid using Ubuntu as a server. Don't forget, Ubuntu is Debian-based Linux system and the server version is very, very close to Debian server. Personally, don't use it but I couldn't say it's a bаd choice. Whatever OS you want to choose to use - Linux, BSD (apple), Windows or something else, you need strong knowledge on it to be in serve. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but Ubuntu is very different than Debian. First of all, Ubuntu and Debian are two distinct distros and although Ubuntu uses .deb packages, the two distros are not compatible. Instructions that work on one distro might not work on the other, .deb files from one distro should never be installed on the other and so on, because configuration files are different, package versions are different, filesystem is different and many other standards are different. Furthermore, Debian servers usually runs Debian Stable (currently Debian Wheezy), which is extensively tested for years before the official release. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is based on Debian Unstable (aka Debian Sid), which is, as its name suggests, very unstable and has the least tested package versions. Ubuntu has a crazy fast paced releasing schedule, which inevitably leads to instability. For a desktop user, there might be no problem on using Ubuntu, since a crash, a security bug or a malfunction once in a while won't be too harmful. But Servers need stability. A single crash or security bug could cost a lot of money, lead to client loss etc... Ubuntu should never be used as a server. Beyond that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many important open source developers, Ubuntu should never be used at all. It has been poorly developed and it was recently involved in serious controversies concerning open source principles. Richard Stalman himself advised all open source community to not use Ubuntu in any circunstance. You can check it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZakKwQ-gFM http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/ubuntu-spyware-what-to-do Edited February 9, 2014 by renatov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzman1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 When some distro is based on another that means, they are similar in most ways, even though still different in some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 @jazzman1: Sure, that's true, but the point made is that the specific ways ubuntu and debian do differ are relevant to whether or not ubuntu should be used as a server, which is what your caveat was about. It's basically the same principle as like.. picking Windows 8 (current "client" version, for home/personal use) vs. Windows Server 2012 (current "server" version, for using as a server). I mean sure, you can turn Windows 8 into a server. It does in fact have a lot of networking capabilities. After all, most people these days have multiple computers/devices throughout the house, so it makes sense that a certain level of that stuff is built in even to personal computers/devices. But Windows 8 just isn't designed with the same security/optimization as an OS dedicated to doing nothing but be a server. Both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 have a lot of the same core. But that doesn't mean both are equally as good for all purposes. Or like.. racing or trying to pick up the chicas with a Ford Pinto vs. a Ford Mustang.. even though they are both made by Ford, clearly one will be more successful in your endeavors than the other. So IOW, is it possible to use ubuntu as a server? Yes. Is it a good idea? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzman1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 @.josh, just to clarify! You're talking about Ubuntu Desktop or Ubuntu Server Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatov Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) @.josh, just to clarify! You're talking about Ubuntu Desktop or Ubuntu Server The problem with Ubuntu is not its version, is its company. Canonical has a fast paced release schedule for Ubuntu, package versions are too freshy, unstested and potentially unstable. Furthermore, Canonical's disrespect for open source principles is more than enough reason to not use its OS. The only good reason for using Ubuntu, in my opinion, is the same reason that someone would use Windows: support and warrant. If you pay these companies, when your server is screwed you can sue them and receive a payout, so instability isn't too much a problem. But even then, there would be better options, like Red Hat, which can give you support, warrant and a better product. Edited February 9, 2014 by renatov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzman1 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Have you ever read the license agreement b/w Canonical and GNU? Not familiar with that, but Ubuntu is still GNU and isn't owned by Canonical. The tricky area here is that almost 80-85% of the GNU developers develop Ubuntu are paid by Canonical. The problems spoken by Richard is on the Ubuntu desktop not for server versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renatov Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Have you ever read the license agreement b/w Canonical and GNU? Not familiar with that, but Ubuntu is still GNU and isn't owned by Canonical. The tricky area here is that almost 80-85% of the GNU developers develop Ubuntu are paid by Canonical. The problems spoken by Richard is on the Ubuntu desktop not for server versions. Although the code is open, the support service and the warrant can be charged, and that's an option when using Ubuntu and other distros like Red Hat, Mandriva, Suse... it's a good idea, depending on the server needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_c_1984 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Thanks very much for all your opinions guys! Very much appreciated Lots of info to go on here! Edited February 10, 2014 by john_c_1984 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmola Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Really? Supporting the devil there... I do know a few who prefer centOS. Never used it before, are there any key differences to that and Debian? I'm not sure what you mean with the "supporting the devil comment." I have been using the AWS platform quite a bit the last few years, and this is where Amazon linux is a good option. It's closer to RHEL and Centos, but an important concern with AWS is that your OS will be run as a Xen guess and should have paravirtualization patches and stability in a virtualized environment. Centos is based on RHEL. They basically take the SRPM's, strip out the RHEL specific things, add some replacement bits and offer it up as Centos. RHEL has long been known for its focus on servers, and its contributions to Linux in general. Often users entry point into the os is through the package management and installation system. For me, I long ago learned rpm extremely well, and subsequently, yum, which wraps it and adds repository support. These are synonymous with dpkg and apt in Debian. At the end of the day, aside from these different package management systems, there are more similarities than differences in these distros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_c_1984 Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Sorry gizmola i realised i never actually got around to replying. I just meant with amazon.. they are just another evil corp dodging taxes like its dodge ball thus further weakening each countries economy they leach within, whilst simulateously screwing over their staff; treating them like minions and discarding without a shred of emotion or empathy. I believe that companies like Amazon are evil to the core and should be avoided. Spend a pound in your local shop and you are putting money back into your community where as spend a pound on amazon and you are doing the opposite. I often wonder how any countries governement lets this sort of tax dodging persist.. but then corruption has deep roots i guess. (i could not find a spell check on this wysiwyg editor so please pardon my terrible spelling) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.