When it comes to our
InternetServer, there will be some unavoidable discussion on choice of distro, even if we avoid a prolonged debate. This page gives that discussion a home.
Registration
Let's start by registering our own preferences on distribution, as well as our experience level with any distro (preferred or otherwise). If you have any "I refuse to have anything to do with" opinions, note those too.
Avoid explaining why at this point; let's just survey the field. Comments about why will be struck-out then deleted.
- BenScott - Prefer a RHEL clone like CentOS. Most experienced with Red Hat Linux, Fedora, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I've tried SuSE, Mandrake, and Debian in the past. I'm willing to work with just about anything.
- BruceDawson - Suggest either RHEL (maybe we can get a company in Westford to donate a copy). I also have experience running Ubuntu servers. I do not recommend a plain Debian server installation
- too much customization is required.
- BillMcGonigle - If we can get a RHEL license, great (make sure that includes support since RHEL support is less community-based). If not, CentOS would avoid costs we can't afford - how's it's track record on maintenance releases? Fedora Core might be worth looking at since it tracks new features the fastest, if we want this to be the 'shining city' server. My server is currently RH9 - it works just fine but it's the old dusty city. I run FC2-4 at several client sites without any distro-specific problems and the community support is great. Anyway, the goals should be to minimise cost, sysadmin requirements, and roadblocks, in that order.
- ToddWarfield - Suggest RHEL or RHEL clone (CentOS) as that is what I am most familiar with.
Concern would be throwing something 'cool' on it (Ubuntu) that none of the admins have worked with enough.
- DrewVanZandt - Suggest Debian. I currently admin an FC4 server and three Debian servers.
yum is painfully slow for package management, requiring more of my valuable time than the three Debian (apt) servers combined. Experience: 3 years RH admin, 2 FC(2-4), 5 Debian. (I note that others have started the "why" debate already.)
- ColeTuininga - Another vote for Debian.
Nice long lifecycle, and long support after it is no longer the "stable" version. Lots more software available in apt than in standard yum repositories. Apticron is a great program for letting folks know that updates are available, without actually doing them. Doesn't get much more F/OS than Debian.
Requirements
See also:
ServerSecurity
The following items outline some of the requirements of the distribution. These exist in light of this system being managed by a (probably) disjoint set of people. For the sake of sanity, let's try to avoid arguing how or why a particular distro fits these criteria at this point. :)
Non-negotiable
We more-or-less can't live without these.
- Free/Open Source Software (free as in speech)
- Why: The "Live free or die!" spirit of NH aligns perfectly with FOSS
- No capital acquisition cost (free as in beer)
- Support for our ServerHardware
- Experience within our community of sysadmin volunteers
- Automatic updates (with yum, apt-get, up2date, etc.)
- Why: We do not have a staff of pros for caretaking
- Must be kept current with security fixes
Preferred
We want these, but can be more flexible.
- Long lifecycle - We want to avoid frequent major upheaval
- Package selection
- Good selection of server stuff we are likely to be interested in
- Reasonably current
- Reasonably good quality