Red Hat vs Ubuntu

[Black Mage]

I'm about to make a choice between servers and I need an honest, UNBIASED opinion. Which Linux is better for server software, Red Hat or Ubuntu. Right now I know the layout of Ubuntu and its free. But redhat seems to know what it is doing and its only $80(I say only $80 because I think of the cost of servers for Mac and Windows).

So what should I go with? Red Hat or Ubuntu. What are the real pros and cons.

[SomeGuyDude]

I'd say Red Hat simply because Ubuntu's always in a constant state of "new version right around the corner". I'm no server expert, but the general consensus is that Ubuntu's for users, not servers.

[-grubby]

I would say (Even though its not a choice) Debian Etch. Ubuntu's release schedule goes too fast for running a server. Red hat otherwise

[fedex1993]

ahcley i wouldnt go with with either ubuntu or redhat i would recommend debian. one because ubuntu i have had problems with permissions 100% of the time and it started to make me mad. debian uses the exact same commands you just dont half to type sudo. also ubuntu is based off a debian type of distro

[p_quarles]

Red Hat is the enterprise standard for Linux servers. If you want the same thing, without the tech support, you can get CentOS, a no-charge clone of RHEL.

Debian Etch is every bit as good as RHEL, in most respects. The advantages of RHEL/CentOS are 1) better setup wizards, and 2) they're the enterprise standard, and more commercial Linux software is available as an .rpm than as a .deb.

[LookTJ]

I would choose either CentOS(free redhat version) or Debian(or Ubuntu).

[Black Mage]

Ahhh, so CentOS is redhat but the free version?

[fedex1993]

I would choose either CentOS(free redhat version) or Debian(or Ubuntu).

wait so centos is like a free version of red hat/also is there just like one setup manager or is there like diffrent kind like ubuntu server edtition and or ubuntu desktop edition

[master_kernel]

CentOS(free redhat clone) or if you are a compulsive money-spender then Red Hat.

[holiday]

Server? Solaris.

[Lostincyberspace]

I use centos for server, it's nice and simple.

[Black Mage]

I'm kinda suprised. 0 votes for ubuntu. Is Ubuntu really not a good solution for a server?

[p_quarles]

I'm kinda suprised. 0 votes for ubuntu. Is Ubuntu really not a good solution for a server?
It's fine as a server. It's not as good as the other options. Debian and RHEL/CentOS will give you an uptime measured in years.

[arsenic23]

I'm kinda suprised. 0 votes for ubuntu. Is Ubuntu really not a good solution for a server?

I think its more of a, if you want a Debian based server, you might as well just use Debian.

[matthewcraig]

If you want top-quality mission-critical Linux on your server, then you buy Red Hat services. If you run a server and you don't care about it, then run CentOS or whatever other crazy solution you plan to support yourself.

[TBOL3]

I would also recommend Debian.

[scxtt]

this thread isn't gonna get anywhere since you're not saying what you want to use the server for ...

if you want to pay for the luxury (and it certainly can be) of passing your problems onto RedHat, go with it ... arguing if RHEL5 is better than CentOS5 is pointless, they're essentially the same, IFF you want RH support, you get RHEL - if you want to support it yourself, you get CentOS5 ... well technically, you can probably get RHEL for free and just use it - i don't believe RH is all-to-concerned w/ the software/media itself ...

basically, if you're not gonna pay for support - use the OS you know best and has all the packages you want, be it RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu/Debian - really i don't see one being inherently better than the other for the type of things most of us do (i.e. NOT enterprise-level business applications) ... and just cause you go w/ RHEL (or debian) doesn't make it "better", at work older versions of RHEL (3 mostly), barf all over themselves more often that anyone would like (mainly cause it's 64-bit, uber amounts of RAM (12-36 GB) support isn't that great).

[HermanAB]

These kind of arguments are quite pointless. All Linux versions are the same when it comes to servers. The only place where distributions are different is on the desktop and a server is just a desktop without a desktop...

Unless of course, if you don't really know Linux yet (or if you are lazy) and want to have wizards so you can point and click your way around, in which case there is only one distribution where you can do *everything* with a wizard: Mandriva.

Cheers,

Herman

[matthewcraig]

no no no.. wait, no.. I have a better idea: Go to walmart or somewhere and buy a cheap computer, cheapest one... buy it used of craig's list or ebay, if you can. Then bring it to work and plug it into a wall jack and tell your "team" to download and to install centOS or mintOS or whatever you read in some random message thread on some internet message forum. No matter what it is, it will still cost the same because your "team" draws the same salary regardless, so why spend any time thinking about it yourself? Just go with whatever is cheapest and takes the least amount of your time. (Really, aren't you the real work horse of the "team"?) When you announce that you got the project up in a day and running for only a couple hundred bucks, everyone at the meeting will recognize you are a genius!!!

</sarcasm>

[SunnyRabbiera]

I would go debian, as even though redhats a standard debian is much better.

[koenn]

These kind of arguments are quite pointless.
I agree, but for a different reason.
There is no such thing as "the best distro for a server" because there is no such thing as "a server". It depends, eg on
- what is this server going to be serving ?
- what kind of environment is it going to be in ?

some exemples :
If the software you're going to be running comes in rpm and tarballs, you probably don't want a deb based system - unless you were planning on compiling your sofware anyway

if the server is mission-critical, you don't want a distro that only offers community support

If you already have a number of servers running, say, debian, or ubuntu, it would be quite silly to chose RedHat for the next server. Not that they wont cooperate well, b or that RTH is inferior to debian, but system administration is way easier in a standardised environment.

[boast]

With my own experience, I would recommend debian. (heck, its the reason I use ubuntu for my desktop)

[Black Mage]

With that said, these servers are not for me but for clients who are looking for easy user interface with already installed functionalites such as a mail server, dns, dhcp, file sharing and so forth. And these are for small starting up business.

I preferable don't mind an all command line server. I infact tend to like it better because I feel I have more control. But this is a server for a novice user just wants it for their small business.

[koenn]

sounds like Microsoft Small Business Server to me :-?

[toupeiro]

I've just not ran ubuntu server enough to endorse it personally. I am sure its fine. I can definately vouch for any RHEL offering.

Another thought: if you are doing filesharing, consider FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org/)

[Black Mage]

sounds like Microsoft Small Business Server to me :-?

Yes but small businesses want to save money. Why not learn how to use an operating system that could be just as powerful as microsoft and cost so much less?

[toupeiro]

Yes but small businesses want to save money. Why not learn how to use an operating system that could be just as powerful as microsoft and cost so much less?

Cheers Black Mage!

[koenn]

what will they be using for desktop systems ?

and

what is your relation to these customers ? Are you just selling them a configured server, or will you also be the one that needs to fix whatever goes wrong ?

[boast]

With that said, these servers are not for me but for clients who are looking for easy user interface with already installed functionalites such as a mail server, dns, dhcp, file sharing and so forth. And these are for small starting up business.

I preferable don't mind an all command line server. I infact tend to like it better because I feel I have more control. But this is a server for a novice user just wants it for their small business.

debian + webmin
I find to be the best as 'easy user interface' for linux goes

[bonzodog]

For an uber stable server set-up, i would seriously look at one of the BSD's plus Webmin, or Slackware plus Webmin.

Both rock as servers, and both have a reputation for being uber stable.

[sajro]

I'll also recommend Debian. No use paying for RH for several reasons: Debian is better (period any implementation). Community support is often better and/or faster than commercial support. Dependancy hell.

So, yes. Debian for the win.

(And yes, trolls, I'll take some fries with that "elitism".)


more commercial Linux software is available as an .rpm than as a .deb.


sudo apt-get install alien
alien -i whatever-this-lame-non-foss-software-is.rpm

[toupeiro]

Debian being better is really a matter of opinion. Elitism is fine for home. I think debian is great, but business software solutions tend to certify RedHat. It would suck if there is a piece of commercial software you need down the line to help your business, and you can't get support for it. You will, after all, have to support more than the OS. Open source is great, but not everything great is open source. Redhat is a better platform for getting the best that open and closed source linux solutions have to offer at this point in time.

[2cute4u]

So far the OP hasn't said what the server is being used for. Untill he does, all the advice is useless. That's like someone asking a sommelier "what's the best wine to serve with dinner", without saying what the meal is.

So any advice given is bad advice. since the specifics are not known

[khurrum1990]

So far the OP hasn't said what the server is being used for. Untill he does, all the advice is useless. That's like someone asking a sommelier "what's the best wine to serve with dinner", without saying what the meal is.

So any advice given is bad advice. since the specifics are not known
I agree with u, but we all know that for servers RedHat is the leader. They have excellent support for servers. Most Linux users I talk to all run servers using RedHat, so there has to be something good about it.

[fatality_uk]

Yes but small businesses want to save money. Why not learn how to use an operating system that could be just as powerful as microsoft and cost so much less?

*sigh*

[fatality_uk]

its only $80(I say only $80 because I think of the cost of servers for Mac and Windows).

If you can get me a couple of RHEL Premium subs for $80, i'll take 20 off your hands right now

[hkgonra]

With that said, these servers are not for me but for clients who are looking for easy user interface with already installed functionalites such as a mail server, dns, dhcp, file sharing and so forth. And these are for small starting up business.

I preferable don't mind an all command line server. I infact tend to like it better because I feel I have more control. But this is a server for a novice user just wants it for their small business.

Sounds like they would do very well with sme server, it is centos based.

http://smeserver.org/

[Black Mage]

So far the OP hasn't said what the server is being used for. Untill he does, all the advice is useless. That's like someone asking a sommelier "what's the best wine to serve with dinner", without saying what the meal is.

So any advice given is bad advice. since the specifics are not known

The type of servers I'm talking about is web servers, mail servers, database servers, and file servers for small business. Like really only 10 employees business who do would prefer saving money not going microsoft.

[sloggerkhan]

I have a friend who's into servers and I think his favorite is actually gentoo.
Guess that's a bit atypical, based on this thread.