[Linux4christians] Linux Server
mwmcmlln at mnsi.net
Sun Jun 18 09:11:35 EDT 2006
On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 01:21 -0400, Ken Sprouse / WA3FKG wrote:
> Howard Coles Jr. wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 June 2006 2:30 pm, jasonite at comcast.net wrote:
> >> I've heard about how robust of a server that Debian is, or so some say
> >> anyway. What's the general consensus around here? I've got a capstone
> >> project that's coming up that has me installing a Linux server just as a
> >> file server. I'm sure that just about any distribution will work for that,
> >> but I'd like to find one that works where it says it works. My former boss
> >> downloaded and tested out Fedora Core 5 when it first came out and it was
> >> buggy as all get out. It took all kinds of technical gymnastics for him to
> >> get it to join the domain and even then it didn't halfway work. His main
> >> sticking point was why even have a GUI for something if it won't work?
> >> (and, yes, he did know what he was doing...the guy is a geek of nature)
> >> Anyway, I was considering either Debian, Ubuntu, or maybe even Mandriva.
> >> I'm not necessarily looking for a distribution that is a full-automation
> >> distro. I just want one that will work and work well.
> > SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. I can attest to their abilities, as we run them
> > as a part of our Enterprise now. The SAMBA setup is very straight forward
> > through YaST, and they are cheaper than RedHat. If you are looking for Free,
> > I'd say you'd be hard pressed to do better than Debian for Linux. It takes a
> > little more on the setup, but with SWAT you should be able to get it going.
> > Not only that but you can set it up with the level of stability that's comfy
> > for you, they have three levels, Stable, (old but solid), Testing, (newish,
> > but could have a bug), and Unstable (Bleeding edge, and somewhat buggy).
> > I've run Debian based distros here at Home for quite some time, and I've never
> > had a problem with 'bugginess' :-D. They're bent on having an extremely
> > stable distro.
> > I think the Latest OpenSUSE could use A LOT of help, as they've had issues
> > with package management. I know its ndiswrapper will cause it to lock up
> > hard, which could point to some networking issues. But, the Enterprise stuff
> > from SUSE is solid.
> I have go agree. Our church needed a file server and Internet gateway.
> I had been playing with Red Hat and it was the only distribution that I
> knew well enough to try but a friend suggested that I try SuSe out so I
> loaded it on a spare laptop and was surprised at how easy the
> installation was. So next I loaded it on a desktop system in my ham
> radio shack and started using it on a daily basis. Then our network
> manager at church loaded it on a system that had been replaced with a
> newer faster box for our school secretary. It has been working well
> ever since. We are running all open source software on the box as our
> IT budget is thinner than a shoe string. It was not without more than a
> little head scratching, wailing and gnashing of teeth though. :-) We
> are running version 9.1 and I think the current version is 10.1 for the
> free distribution. I'm running 10.0 on my systems at home. I think if
> all you need is a file server with SAMBA you could load up anything
> between 9.0 and 10.0 , configure it and walk away. Good luck with your
SuSE has a 6 month release cycle and the system is patched from SuSE
(Security etc.) for two years from release date. If you go SuSE go with
10.0, there are a few gotcha's with 10.1 that they engineers are working
their tails off to fix at this point. I'm running 10.0 on my main
system and 10.1 on a laptop, fyi.
More information about the Linux4christians