For servers, CentOS or Debian?
Windows server 2003
>>53900729
As long as the distribution can start off minimal, and you can build on it with your own content, either one is fine. I'm a debian fag, so I'd use a mini iso and build on that.
>>53900729
arch
>>53900729
FreeBSD. Srs.
im 20 years old noob
and i say: CentOS
red hat rulz
GuixSD
CentOS for no other real reason than I use RHEL for most of my not at home computer usage.
Debian.
I wanna start hosting and wanna do Debian cause it is reliable (is this true?).
i wanna start with a minimal distro so my resources can be used torwards hosting (is this the right way to say that).
im 3 months into my Linux life (fedora w/ mate, but switched to KDE few weeks ago)
>>53900729
centos
>built from rhel sources
>10 years of support
>vastly superior package management (not a big deal tho, even fucking emacs has better package management than .deb based distros)
>>53901098
Debian (stable) and CentOS are both reliable.
I go with Debian just for the giant repos.
>>53900790
This. But you're a newb so you'll run GNU/Linux and then switch to it later when you gain more experience.
>>53900749
By mini you meant netinstall, or?
Debian.
- Bigger repos
- Able to excise systemd (CentOS has no method to remove systemd)
- apt-get > yum
>>53900729
arch
Slackware.
>>53902798
>- apt-get > yum
The amount of mental gymnastics exercised by debianfags is astounding.
the ONLY place where apt shines when compared to yum is the speed.
That's why dnf was developed.
APT is pure, insecure, unstable GARBAGE that will nigger up your dependencies sooner or later.
>>53900751
sometimes servers are more than just toys...
>>53900790
this is a great option
otherwise:
- CentOS if you like RPM/Red Hat style systems
- Debian if you like... Debian systems
