Org > InternetServer > ServerDistro > ServerDistroDebate

GNHLUG webs: Main | TWiki | Sandbox   Log In or Register

Changes | Index | Search | Go

Introduction

The ServerDistro page started off an attempt at an organized decision process on choosing a distribution. The idea was for people to first simply state their preferences and experience, so we could get an idea of what people preferred without having to get into why. That would help frame the decision process. Next would be an attempt at defining objective criteria for what we, as GNHLUG, need and want in a distribution. My hope was that an ordered approach would perhaps lead to insight and a learning experience for everyone, me included.

Unfortunately (but, alas, not surprisingly), it appears people are unable to cope with the concept of stating a preference without also getting into why they hold that preference. In order to localize the noise, those statements are being moved here. Turn this page into a free-for-all if you like.

-- BenScott - 11 Feb 2006

Moved from ServerDistro

• 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 to get the current site onto a Debian system in the time available.
• 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. Sample port to a Debian server is up at http://gnhlug.oddones.org/ .
• 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. That said, if it's a lot more work to go to something like Debian, considering the time frame, I'm fine with just about any distro.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions