Debian or CentOS
>>54835609
You can't go wrong with any Debian based one.
centos
or debian if you have a machine with architecture other than x86.
CENTOS or debian
>>54835617
i have tried CentOS but dont unterstand why some configs not exist anymore like /etc/network/interfaces, its in something like /etc/sysconfig/... but why?
Arch. Not even meme-ing. It's minimal so you only install what you actually need. No bloat opening up for potential vulnerabilities.
Debian works for me.
>>54835708
>bleeding-edge distro for a server
>>54835708
>It's minimal so you only install what you actually need. No bloat opening up for potential vulnerabilities.
>I use /g/ buzzwords without knowing what they mean
Got money, RHEL.
Else, Debian.
>>54835750
Not a problem.
Microsoft QC are worst than Arch, but some people still use Windows Server.
>>54835773
Got money, RHEL.
Else, CentOS (redhat without branding and some costumer service package)
>>54835679
/etc/network/interfaces is the Debian way. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ is the Fedora/CentOS way. Read the Networking Guide at http://docs.redhat.com to learn how it works.
FreeBSD
>>54835609
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
>>54835831
so each disto has it own way to choose where and how configs are written or is it dependent on the network management software in this case?
>>54835609
PostgreSQL
>>54835609
You should use a BSD, but CentOS is pretty good.
>>54835708
you can't be serious
>>54835708
>wanting to have to reboot ever 10 days for a kernel update
>>54835852
>FreeBSD
If you know what you gonna do, I agree.
>>54835914
Most will try to stick to the style of one of the major distros. It's a pain in the ass going between systems.
I wasted like half a day once because all of the Rasbian documentation was out of date and they started using some dhcp daemon shit that completely ignored the network interfaces config.
I generally stay away from red hat stuff because I got to comfy with the way debian did things
>>54835708
>minimal
>don't know what is net install or how configure it
>>54835914
Yes. Especially the major one such as RedHat, Debian, Gentoo.
If you use NetworkManager, you can ignore those setting though.
And it's all the same across any distro.
But afaik, nobody use NetworkManager for servers as it focus on dynamic network config.
Servers are on static network.
>>54835609
Freebsd so you don't have to deal with systemd trash
Slackware or a derivitive. No systemd.
>>54835708
nigga you need to check yourself
>>54835852
this. stable, great docs and pf is how firewalls should work.
Ubuntu 8.04
>>54835609
Debian or red hat based.
>>54835609
debian unless you don't enjoy using outdated glibc versions
>>54835609
opensuse leap
for server and desktop
Literally 1 ubuntu mention, why is it worse than centos or debian by /g/?
>currently using it as a samba server only
Debian Stable
>>54835708
Nobody uses arch on business servers. Nobody.
Parabola, Arch without the botnet.
>>54835655
> CENTOS or debian
This.
These distributions do everything for you without holding your hand. They're balanced between "it just works" -usability and still letting you do whatever you want.
If you don't like systemd, just go for FreeBSD instead.
Has anyone used devuan as a server os ?
I need to install another server soon and i'd like to hear some opinions about this before using it.
https://devuan.org/
>>54835609
I run OpenBSD on mine
Why the hate for an arch server? Just because it's not a common choice? What's wrong with keeping your server's packages up to date?
>>54835624
even gnewsense
>>54839804
Servers are commonly used with a "fire-and-forget" type of administration meaning that you set everything up once and it just works forever.
Arch is the completely opposite of that.
>>54835864
>ancient shitposting
what year is it
>>54840208
You can just choose not to update it, then. You'll still have a lightweight server running only the processes that are necessary for the server.
>>54835708
>that meme responses
using arch for my companies owncloud and OPSI Server, works way better than centOS/debian that break on every big update.
centos, debian, ubuntu server
>Hating systemd
Did you know you, systemd can set limit memory and cpu usage for each (or group of) service started.
Systemd use cgroup to set the policy.
>>54835609
Debian's pretty solid. If you don't like that then maybe openSUSE?
>>54835708
centos is the most used
debian is great for that job too
an arch dev said that it is possible to use it for server -- not recommend it though
>>54835708
every distro has a minimal edition which you can build upon
>>54835852
OP said linux, otherwise BSDs are great option as well
>>54839804
only needed updates for servers are security patches
>>54835609
FreeNAS
