I prefer Ubuntu. The newest patch, although people say CentOs 7 is comfy/

>>51619235
Slackware

FreeBSD is a lot of fun. Ports and Jails are super dope.

Otherwise I'd do Debian. Too bad that's old-stable though. Maybe Ubuntu would better since that's an outdated version of Debian.

I hate dealing with SElinux, otherwise Centos is great.

>>51619235
for doing what, exactly? the main question here is what are your requests in terms of stability, documentation and package age.

I forgot to mention what I'm planning to do with the server which actually doesn't really matter since all I plan to do with it is run nginx and nodejs

>install minecraft

>>51619415
I could haha but what a resource hog amirite? I'd rather like to invest my time learning how to host many different websites from the same ip address, and how to get nginx to fucking forward to a url like index.html:3000 so that I don't have to make users literally type in ":3000" to get to my app

>>51619402
freebsd it is then. unless you already have a preference in the ubuntu/centos direction and don't feel l like getting to know something minorly different.
i like freebsd, it feels very complete and stable at the same time. great os. i personally would choose ubuntu 14 lts otherwise, mainly because debian is ancient even as stable, let alone old stable. i have had good times with centos too, though, it would be merely the fact that i'm more used to apt.

>>51619235
FreeBSD of course.

>>51620793
>>51619464

I've used Debian for a while, Ubuntu too. What are the differences between Debian and FreeBSD?

I'm guessing I can't use apt-get? Any other differences? It's still a Linux shell so it should support just about everything anyways right?

>>51619464
>>51620793
Ok what I've read so far is that freeBSD is the "general purpose" version of OpenBSD, which is the security-oriented version.

I also read that it's just "Unix-like", not actually Unix. So it's NOT Unix and it's NOT linux - does it run BASH?

>>51621060
It's not a version of OpenBSD, it's actually older.
It's not "real" UNIX mostly for legal reasons (it got sued and had to drop the trademark*).
It uses (t)csh by default, bash can be installed with a single command. They're similar though, other than scripting you may not even notice a difference.

* https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/what-a-real-unix.html

>>51621196
I had to work with tcsh in a Linux class I took. It's inferior to bash, and used by old men who used to do all their work in C. It exists for their sake only

>>51620979
>I'm guessing I can't use apt-get?
There are two ways to install software: binary packages and source ports. Packages work just like apt-get, ports have to be compiled from source (the process is automated).

>Any other differences?
Most of the system level configuration is done in a single file - /etc/rc.conf
The base system is neatly organised, everything you install goes to /usr/local/
There are many other differences you'll come across, but nothing major.

>It's still a Linux shell so it should support just about everything anyways right?
Pretty much.