Ok /g/ the time has come again
which is the best OS for servers and why?
>windows server
>ever
>letting such a moron touch a production system
Not Windows.
Debian and Ubuntu are pretty similar. You can get used to either and they both work fine.
I prefer Debian since I prefer the classics and don't really like systemd. Someone new to things can learn either.
server: linux-like
desktop: microsoft
mobile: apple
if you're really into /technology/ you should be savvy in all three
ubuntu server
>>45562448
Ubuntu is Debian.
Windows isn't even an option for most sane people.
So... Debian
>>45562457
Server 2003, just like 2008 remains high tier on PC, it's really fast, and won't crash at all. no bullshit, no ie, no WMP.
but in a server... nope.
>>45562505
>Ubuntu is Debian.
Wrong.
>>45562505
>Ubuntu is Debian
>>45562497
server: linux
desktop: linux
mobile: linux
if you're really into /technology/ you should be savvy in free and open source operating systems only
there, fix'd your shitty post for you.
>>45562497
lamo
Gentoo Server Edition
centos or debian
>>45562457
>tfw work for various UTC companies one summer
>windows everything everywhere
it's so shitty, this guy knows whats up
also, never work for UTC.
>>45562558
There is no "server edition" of Gentoo, but Gentoo is actually the ultimate distro for servers if you set it up right, and have a central build server.
>>45562558
>rolling release operating system on a server
>>45562448
CentOS or OpenBSD.
I use both at home.
debian stable or centos
/thread
>>45562448
OpenBSD
Ubuntu/RHEL/Suse/SmartOS
Windows server is only used when I am in an full MS environment.
>>45562542
>Implying Linux is a full OS ad not just a kernel.
Seriously though, most people will say Debian is best for servers, although I've heard some good things about RHEL
INB4 RHEL isn't FOSS. I don't think OP cares.
>All this hatred towards Windows Server
Guys, that stuff is easy as piss to setup and it just werks. Since Server 2003, it's rock solid.
However, I would still use a Linux where I can, because flexibility.
>>45562592
Proper rolling-release operating systems are far better for keeping up to date with security patches.
It's only bad if you're using something bleeding-edgy like Arch.
>>45562635
That downtime tho.
>>45562633
Only /g/ says Debian is the best for servers. Most people use CentOS.
>>45562670
How would something like Gentoo give you downtime?
>>45562634
But that's the point, Windows server is only usable for simple server tasks you see in a glorified office server.
I have no problem when it's used for that, I have a problem when people try to use it at scale, administering Windows server is annoying as fuck in my experience.
>>45562606
offtopic question, is that picture this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0500092/
that animation is weird.
>>45562689
You leave your server running while you update?
>>45562698
It's only weird if you don't understand the underlying concepts. Watch it a few times, and you might get it.
>>45562698
It tries to be deep, the animation part of it is fine.
The show is not for everybody though.
>>45562448
CentOS or Debian. I'm not sure why any sane person would run either of the other two on a server.
To be honest, I'm not really sure why any sane person would run either of the other two on a desktop, either, considering there's Debian Sid and Arch for systems on which you care about up to date packages.
Is it worth learning how to run a server? It's not like I have anything to serve.
>>45562717
>>45562757
ok...
I can watch almost anything anyway.
>>45562448
>>45562448
Don't listen to all this hacker-wannabe morons who've probably never had a real job in software development in their lives and pretend they know shit by repeating what others said eons before them on /g/. Windows Server is a very capable operating system. It's stable, extremely well documented, fast and now that a large segment of the .NET stack is being open sourced, it means IIS and ASP.NET are going to be ported natively to OS X and GNU/Linux, which will make Windows server-side development cross-platform and probably free. I seriously believe this will bring down the prices of Windows Server hosting costs a great deal and that may encourage more people to give Microsoft a go.
I'm not claiming Windows Server is the best server OS but it certainly holds its own. In reality, there is no such thing as "the best server operating system". As with programming languages, you must understand the problem domain, your particular constraints and your priorities, and make a decision based on that. Most people choose GNU/Linux servers because deploying a LAMP (or LAMP-derivative) stack is entirely free and not too hard. Also, many people argue UNIX servers are better because they have really good automation tools like bash scripting, cron jobs and whatnot. And that is true, but Microsoft introduced PowerShell, the Windows equivalent of the Bourne shell a while ago and that makes both platforms even again in that regard too.
All in all, it entirely depends on the problem you're trying to solve and your existing infrastructure. And before anyone tags me as a Microsoft shill, I'm running Ubuntu Server in my home server and administrate a Debian Linux cluster in my university, so shut the fuck up.
BTW, I know OP's picture only displays Ubuntu and Debian but I still found it funny no one mentioned CentOS, RHEL, openSUSE or any of the *BSDs. You cannot have a serious discussion about good server systems without those.
>>45562806
be a waiter, it's much more fun, serving people face to face instead of through internet protocols.
How about Solaris?
>>45562821
>Windows Server is a very capable operating system.
Like hell it is.
>>45562806
>implying denyhosts is hard to learn
I can't really think of anything else that would be any different from just running a normal system. There's nothing special about "running a server"
>>45562821
Some people mentioned CentOS, RHEL and *BSD while I was writing my post, so I acknowledge that.
>>45562821
>I still found it funny no one mentioned CentOS, RHEL, openSUSE or any of the *BSDs.
Did you even read the thread, you dumb motherfucker?
>>45562839
If you're running SPARC, I'd suggest Debian or *BSD over Solaris.
>>45562850
People mentioned it while I was writing my post. You had such a massive hard-on for calling me a dumb motherfucker you didn't read the post I wrote acknowledging such fact, yet you did not address any of my serious points, which proves you're just one of those low-IQ pro-wannabes who lurk /g/ and have never written a serious line of code in their lives.
>>45562701
That's fine if you're not upgrading your kernel or init system or something like that.
And you don't need to compile everything on the production machine.
It's not like you have to update any more often than you would with non-rolling-release operating systems anyway.
>>45562633
>INB4 RHEL isn't FOSS
are you a dipshit?
do you even know what CentOS is?
>>45562448
debian, centos, ubuntu server
sometimes suse
because stability
>>45562448
never use windows as a server. That is stupid...
ubuntu is okay, but it's less stable than debian.
>>45562821
>now that a large segment of the .NET stack is being open sourced, it means IIS and ASP.NET are going to be ported natively to OS X and GNU/Linux
not necessarily.
>>45562914
You're either a troll or have serious rage issues. Either way you're not too bright.
>>45562934
Give me a reason why Windows is not a good choice as a server.
>>45562489
Debian nowadays comes with systemd. At least in all my systems (10) I call everything as
# service [name] start/status/restart/stop
>>45562934
active directory and hyper-v are pretty great
>>45562959
>You're either a troll or have serious rage issues. Either way you're not too bright.
Let's consider for a second it might be just the other way round. At least I supported what I said with facts and arguments. The only thing you did was call me a "dumb motherfucker" which instantly makes you right... right?
>not necessarily.
That's the most compelling counterargument I've seen in my life. You sure have mastered the art of dialectics, sir. Good job.
>>45562963
nonfree as in freedom; therefor can't be relied on since behavior can't be studied or predicted.
>>45562512
>>45562535
Ubuntu is Debian.
>>45563014
Try again
https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet
>>45563026
Canonical have changed so much shit in Ubuntu and added so many things exclusive to their distro I'm no longer sure that's true, sadly.
>>45563029
>one part of a fully functioning system
fuck off retard.
>>45563026
>what does distro mean?
>>45563091
Little and less
I'm this guy >>45562934
>>45562963
The only reason windows is used, it's because companies need it for different purpose : compatibility with .NET, different library, framework, proprietary software (office is just an example that everybody knows), and for the support microsoft can provide you. But they are bullshit reason.
Linux is more stable, secure, faster, consume less memory, and if you want to store important data you should never trust a non free operating system, there will be a botnet that will send the data to NSA, that will give/sell to American company. The security of the USA is military and economic, don't forget that.
>>45562505
>>45562512
>>45563026
>>45563039
Ubuntu is based on debian, they share a lot of packages, but they aren't exactly the same.
The best example is that debian will use wayland whereas ubuntu will use mir. That makes a huge difference no ?
>>45563045
They haven't open sourced the entire thing at once, They're doing it progressively, smartass. Today they released the source code for System.Console, and that adds to the portion of the Linq, Threading and Xml libraries they published a while ago. It's just a matter of time until the entire framework is available.
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/tree/master/src
It seems people hate being proved wrong on this thread.
>>45563238
It does to me. Ubuntu also uses Unity instead of GNOME. To be fair, there's nothing to stop you from just installing a different DE like KDE or another WM like Xfce or Openbox, or even replacing Mir with Wayland, but you'll have to do it yourself.
>>45563238
Beside the point.
>>45563208
Well, I think your reasons are pretty valid. I guess if you are given the rare opportunity of starting from scratch (if you're a freelance developer or a start-up company), choosing UNIX might make things easier for you, but I still believe Windows Server is far from being a bad server OS.
>>45562914
when you have multiple domains, in your opinion is the best for managing them? is active directory good? and on linux are there any dc alternatives?
>>45563355
it's not a bad server OS. Unix is just better. After, as for many things, it depends on what you expect of it.
Speaking of servers, what're some cool things to host? I got a spare 2500K box sitting around and want to run something. I already do a TS server, MC, Plex, and some websites.
ArchLinux
>>45563208
>store important data you should never trust a non free operating system
correct, but not for your reason.
ZFS, BTRFS or even Ext4 are significantly superior filesystems than anything winshitter offers.
>>45562982
I did not know but honestly suspected that as I wrote my post. I use OpenBSD now.
>>45564015
You could start the next hot teen modeling site on Tor.
>>45564094
I'd rather not poke the bear.
>>45562982
Not yet on Stable, Wheezy is still on SysV
Also, you can do # service blabla start with systemd too
>>45564066
why is the resolution so small
OpenBSD is the only option.
>mfw these FOSS faggots expect to deploy 10000 windows clients with linux or bsd
>mfw no decent exchange equivalent for linux or bsd
YEAR OF THE LINUX SERVER: NEVER
>>45564177
>wintards
>>45564184
>doesn't provide an alternative to active directory or exchange
>uses ad hominem attacks
not my fault that your software can't compete
>>45564213
>cable monkeys
lmao get back when you can do actual computing work
>>45564223
>not being paid 300k a year for having unix/linux and windows sysadmin skills
When will you learn that the more skills you have = more money you earn
>>45564177
>deploying windows clients
found your problem m8.
Linux for hosting / ftp / backup / videocams / ...
ESX for VM
Windows server for network share, user management, thin clients, codesoft... everything else.
When working in IT (for factories or offices) you don't have time to spend on editing configuration file or fixing broken dependencies.
Windows is by far the easiest to setup, comes with pro. support and warranties.
>>45564252
When will you learn that windows is only for low-IQ manchild and slave monkey retards?
>>45564256
/thread
>>45564253
Yeah, you're going to force normal human beings to use gNewsense and tell people who need Win32 software to run FreeDOS.
When you're this out of tune with individual needs you may as well have an IT mental illness.
>>45564585
If they didn't care about freedom they might as well just die off.
>>45562497
That's what I run at the moment. Best of all worlds, fanboys need not apply.
>>45562448
Debian. Everything arch should of been plus without the annoying docks.
>>45564585
Ubuntu will be fine too.
Debian
CentOS
>>45562448
>intership at ecolab
>windows, windows everywhere
>check out some basic information about Ecolab
>Bill gates is one of the biggest shareholders
dis fucking nigga
RHEL or Fedora.
Windows. You can play vidyagaemz with that.
>>45562821
Completely wrong. We have windows servers and domain controllers. Microsoft is sloppy as fuck, documentation is good until you have to self document all their broken shit and workarounds because they don't fix anything.
For one example just take a look at IE which has versions 6 through 11 now with shitty user agent tags broken for no reason, nothing works the same between any release, they removed conditional commenting tags in 10 but shit breaks in 10 and 11 is the latest now. I have never had to pollute the shit out of clean code more than dealing with anything Microsoft related.
Linux based servers are stable, predictable, and well documented. Along with a open source collaboration and community that is more skilled. We use .NET for a few specific tasks but it can be deployed on mono just as easily as it can on a windows machine.
>>45562793
Ubuntu works fine on a server is now the main server OS that a lot of these clouds are being produced on.
>ever considering Windows
>>45562448
depends on the use of the server
you are an idiot if you think one OS can do everything
though I prefer working with debian or *BSD
I used to run an Ubuntu server for my dad and I liked it. I stopped because he doesn't need a website.
>>45562448
what about centos/rh family?
>>45565500
read thread
>>45562448
FreeBSD is the only right answer. First-class support of ZFS and a more monolithic approach to distribution make it a no-brainer.
Could someone link me to a more step by step guide to setting up a server using Debain. The /g/ wiki and documentation isn't exactly user friendly
>>45565650
Just do a Debian netinstall and pick which server things you want in the install wizard and you're done.
>>45565650
>using the /g/ wiki to try to set up a debian server
lol
I know its an epic maymay
but try gentoo isntead, the documentation is phenomenal
>>45562448
>Listing windows
2012r2 dc can't go wrong
>>45565650
What do you want a server for?
>>45562448
Windows if you have to use exchange
otherwise, debian, fedora, or BSD.
>>45565650
Try slackware, it has a simple ncurses installer.
Yeah ...
right tool for the job imho.
If my environment requires minimal oversight of user deployments.
Linux shit.
If my environment requires extensive client management
Windows crap.
The more users i have the more i tend to favor exchange, due to downtime considerations.
If the company is already in bed with IBM then sure why not some lotus crap for collaboration.
Works fine enough i guess ...
2008 r2 is great for server. NEVER crashes, hardly reboot, no need for updates (rarely). Great for DNS, DHCP, R&R, CA. With 8 GB of RAM and an i3 Ive had up to 13 Servers & WS Vm's in Hyper V. Phenomenal. Fuck loonyix and g'apple
>>45562448
>centos
Its what i use for my PLEX server.
>>45562448
ubuntu motherfucker
arch
i'm a robot
depends what its for. windows users trying to access files stored on a linux box is normally pretty terrible. other apps need windows everything else? why not debian
>>45567211
1. Linux can do DNS, DHCP and hypervisor virtual machines, and probably do it better.
2. You shouldn't run everything on the one machine, especially if you're running DNS and DHCP. If that one machine fails in some way, your network and everything on the server comes crashing down.
* Debian 7
* Ubuntu minimal
* Everything that's not RHEL-based
>>45562448
>for servers
debian all day erry day
>>45562821
>Windows Server is a very capable operating system
