(also CC'd to wlug-list for interest) Hi Gun,
I'm investigating a server for my NW of 6-8 workstations. Do you think FC2 or SuSE as a server for file and printer sharing? Is SUse free like FC2 is?
SUSE is free in the same way that all Linuxes are; they're built on GPL components, but some distributions are not necessarily made available the same way as others. You can download SUSE as a Knoppix-like live CD, a single CD "personal" distribution (that isn't what you want for a server) or you can get the packages for other versions of SUSE from their FTP site, and install it manually. You could also find people who have a copy locally, I'm expect Gund or Michael Cree will be able to help. Of those two I would recommend Fedora Core here - this is my personal recommendation, as I know it and like it and I can't really say the same about SUSE. As for "the recommendation of the LUG as a whole", if you're prepared to do everything from the command line and do a lot of learning, you still can't go past Debian. There will be a new version called "Sarge" (3.1) released in a couple of months; you can get a recent ISO file of the installer and go from there, downloading more recent packages off the Internet, or you could install Woody (3.0) and wait till Sarge is released and release over the top, etc.. A large reason people that moved away from Red Hat to Debian on their servers is that Red Hat didn't have an automatic way of downloading and installing packages, and Debian did (apt-get). Now, Red Hat (in the form of the Fedora Project) has yum, apt-get and up2date to choose from, it's not really a problem any more. Also, there is more software packaged for Debian (11,000 packages or so) but for the ones that you regularly need, they're all available in 3rd parties repositories for Fedora.
From my estimates of your experience, I think you couldn't go past Fedora Core. FC3 is also coming out in a couple of months time.
Craig
I'm a happy FC1 user... I'm certainly biased towards RH and FC because it is all I've used since RH4.2 replaced my Slackware 3.6 install. I've come to live with the limitations and niceties that RH's distros have. It reminded me of all the reasons I left Slackware behind. I'm also very encouraged by the speed at which FC is moving. Hopefully FC3 will include Gnome 2.8 and Evo 2. Both look like really good steps forward for Gnome (my preferred "Desktop"). Hopefully there will also be more "community" involvement in the Fedora Project soon too. Though FC is also not a distro to run on a server. If you want a reliable commercially supported server distro then RHEL is very good but expensive. If you're a "who cares about commercial support" kinda guy then Debian is the flavour you should use on your server. Though Debian "Stable" certainly lags somewhat behind in application versions. Which in the OSS world can be bad (unless people backport patches). Eg, the version of OpenLDAP on RH9 is no longer supported by OpenLDAP.org. If you find a bug or whatever you've gotta upgrade. This may effect Debian "stable" even more due to its age. I was rather put off Debian last time I tried it due to its lack of polish at the install phase. I'm lazy, I want the computer to do work for me, not the other way around.
A large reason people that moved away from Red Hat to Debian on their servers is that Red Hat didn't have an automatic way of downloading and installing packages, and Debian did (apt-get). Now, Red Hat (in the form of the Fedora Project) has yum, apt-get and up2date to choose from, it's not really a problem any more. Also, there is more software packaged for Debian (11,000 packages or so) but for the ones that you regularly need, they're all available in 3rd parties repositories for Fedora.
From my estimates of your experience, I think you couldn't go past Fedora Core. FC3 is also coming out in a couple of months time.
-- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
I'm also very encouraged by the speed at which FC is moving. Hopefully FC3 will include Gnome 2.8 and Evo 2. Both look like really good steps forward for Gnome (my preferred "Desktop").
It will indeed - the 2.7 versions will be in FC3t2 coming out Sep 13, but the final will include the final 2.8 releases that are made on Sep 15. FC releases are set to occur just after GNOME releases for this very reason.
Though FC is also not a distro to run on a server.
I've heard this too, but is it backed up by anything? RH7.x, 8, 9 were all acceptable distros to run on a server, especially a small home network server. While it's true that RHEL has taken off, I don't think that the changes in ideology between RH9 and FC1 were that great (I admit FC2 did push a few boundaries, but RH always did) and I don't think that there'd be any reason not to continue running FC as an unsupported home server OS.
I was rather put off Debian last time I tried it due to its lack of polish at the install phase. I'm lazy, I want the computer to do work for me, not the other way around.
You'll be looking forward to sarge then. I hope that the new debian-installer is worthwhile; it's easier to install than using boot-floppies, but I'm a bit disappointed it's not going to have graphical frontends. I'm sure Progeny will put out a Sarge-using-Anaconda iso or instructions very soon after release. I'm not sure what Canonical (http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/591) are going to be using for their Debian distro. Craig
Though FC is also not a distro to run on a server.
I've heard this too, but is it backed up by anything? RH7.x, 8, 9 were all acceptable distros to run on a server, especially a small home network server. While it's true that RHEL has taken off, I don't think that the changes in ideology between RH9 and FC1 were that great (I admit FC2 did push a few boundaries, but RH always did) and I don't think that there'd be any reason not to continue running FC as an unsupported home server OS.
Well for SOHO's it is probably ok. Especially if you put a good firewall and some intrusion detection stuff in front of their Internet facing ether. I don't say this because FC is inherently less stable or insecure than RHEL et al. More because it moves very fast and is bleeding edge. Errata support falls off very quickly compared to Debian "stable" or RHEL. For larger businesses (and even some smaller ones) there is a lot of benefit in having a server system you know is stable (as in slow moving) for a long period where the only changes are to patch security flaws and bugs. Likewise, in many cases if a company needs a service that isn't supplied by (or can not be installed on) the current version of the distro running on their server it can be a better systems management decision to install a 2nd server with a newer release of the "stable" distro than disrupt the existing infrastructure by upgrading the existing server's distro to the new version. In business, change is bad. :) I know the last thing I'd want is a server where I had to re-install the OS and migrate all the service configuration and user data every 6 months to stay current. This topic has been talked about at length on this list in the past. Regards -- Oliver Jones » Director » oliver(a)deeperdesign.com » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
participants (2)
-
Craig Box -
Oliver Jones