thelinuxlink.net

I'm probably going to be getting a cheap dedicated server soon and I have a choice between Debian Stable and CentOS (RHEL stripped of RedHat branding). Which do you think would be better for someone who is brand new to admining a server?

greggh wrote:I'm probably going to be getting a cheap dedicated server soon and I have a choice between Debian Stable and CentOS (RHEL stripped of RedHat branding). Which do you think would be better for someone who is brand new to admining a server?

Whichever you feel more comfortable with I'm personally more bias toward Debian. Since I work for a large wireless company though, I end up using RHEL most of the time which also works fantastic.

One point. I'm not sure what kind of software is currently in Debian stable for apache etc, if you want to use new things like php5 (just using php5 as an example) you might be hard pressed to find them there.

At which point CentOS _might_ be the better choice, because a more current set of software will be available (through packaging). But don't take my word for it, I haven't recently looked what kind of updates Debian stable has. In my server farm I use a mix between fedora and deb unstable.

On the other hand, it's not hard updating Debian to a different branch like testing or unstable (if you have the permissions to do such a thing on the box you are using). But if you plan on manually compiling some stuff like apache etc php5(for example) it may not matter. I do this when I'm working on a Debian stable system, I just roll my own to get the most current stuff I need.

Oh well I think that made sense

Apache2 is available in Debian stable, and for just about anything else you could need, such as php5, there is Backports.

Thanks for the input sulfide. You're right about php5 not being available for deb stable (mysql 5 as well) but I wouldn't need the most up to date versions anyway. I'm concerned mostly about stability and ease of use. I get the feeling debian may be easier to admin, but CentOS may be a bit more stable.

greggh wrote:Which do you think would be better for someone who is brand new to admining a server?

I like RPM distros, might sound weird but I do, and I have used CentOS in the past and really enjoyed it.

The thing you may need to get used to is Red Hat's command line admin tools and the overall Red Hat feel, once you've got those nailed, CentOS is really great.

But who am I to talk? I still run SUSE 10.1, after this whole Microvell thing, that name change to "openSUSE" doesn't feel so bad anymore.

Wally Balljacker wrote:Apache2 is available in Debian stable, and for just about anything else you could need, such as php5, there is Backports.

Thanks for letting me know about backports. I'm going to look more into that.

My web site runs Debian but I don't administer it, it's a shared hosting setup. It's running apache 1.3. I'm a bit put off by the fact that kernel 2.4 and apache 1.3 are default. I know you can get newer packages, but I'd rather be running a distro that has apache 2 as a default, not an add-on. Just personal preference, though. Apache 1.3 is very stable and secure, I'm just used to 2.0.

Presonally I'd go with CentOS, but that's ONLY because I'm familiar with Red Hat and RPM. If you're not familiar with either, they're really about equal. Both have a great reputation on the server.

Thanks for the input Gomer. I pretty much decided on CentOS. Like you say, I think it will be easier to get and maintain newer versions of things like Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc... with CentOS 4.4 than Debian Stable.

I upgraded my RH9 webserver to Centos4.4 earlier this year, and have never looked back. It's fantastic!

Stick on webmin & phpMyAdmin and it's seriously easy to administer as well.

-Gordon.

gordonmarkus wrote:I upgraded my RH9 webserver to Centos4.4 earlier this year, and have never looked back. It's fantastic!

Quite encouraging to hear, I guess I now know what my file server will be running when I rebuild it. I think it has had a motherboard failure, because it just died. Boy do I hate cheap proprietary motherboards! They suck ass, and using them just feels like an infinite turd coming out of my ass!!

(Yes, I've been watching too much Angry Nintendo Nerd)

Tsuroerusu wrote:Quite encouraging to hear, I guess I now know what my file server will be running when I rebuild it. I think it has had a motherboard failure, because it just died. Boy do I hate cheap proprietary motherboards! They suck ass, and using them just feels like an infinite turd coming out of my ass!!

(Yes, I've been watching too much Angry Nintendo Nerd)

Is that your superior Apple product? Say it isn't so!

Wally Balljacker wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:Quite encouraging to hear, I guess I now know what my file server will be running when I rebuild it. I think it has had a motherboard failure, because it just died. Boy do I hate cheap proprietary motherboards! They suck ass, and using them just feels like an infinite turd coming out of my ass!!

(Yes, I've been watching too much Angry Nintendo Nerd)

Is that your superior Apple product? Say it isn't so!

No no, this is a "frankenstein" machine I built from a motherboard from my uncle's broken PC, oh well, Celeron sucks ass anyway.