I want to do Linux on my server...which version?

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: SnapIT

With SLackware you are locked into a specific configurations.

Care to explain that statement?

It takes forever to change things around, since you not only need to compile them yourself, but you need to work out any kinks between different software and libraries.

YARILD (Yet Another Reason I Like Debian)

However there are countless other solutions to the problem.

Could you give me one, so that I can stop disliking slackware. I still remember rpm hell with mandrake before the days of apt-rpm. The solutions that I usually took for that are as follows, listed in order of least to most used.

Solution 1: Very potent medicines
Solution 2: A hand-crafted white flag
Solution 3: Apply head to wall, repeating as necessary up to 7 times (for good luck )
Solution 4: Throw things..... throw them everywhere....... large, mettalic things.......
Solution 5: Eat soap... Preferably lever 2000
Solution 6: Give up, go play a game of Freeciv. Come back later and approach the problem with a clear mind
Solution 7: Begin viciously attacking the computer with a rubber mallet

Slackware is a *nix freak distro, no doubt about that, you can, if you want to use the included packaging tools, which incluces RPM and pkgtool (for .tgz) (this is for slack 9) or you can compile it yourself, which is what any self respecting *nix freak would do anyways (and you could probably get debian tools to work on slack too if you really wanted to)...

What is nice about Slack is that you get what ask for, nothing more and nothing less, it's precise and installs just what you want it to install, the downside is that you have to know the dependencies yourself (just RTFM)...

You need your sweet gui and package system? bah...

BingBong... i'm just about ready to install NetBSD... i'll rip on the install proggy tomorrow...

 

[vash]

For a server, I would go with Debian immediately (as long as Woody has hardware the installer will find). Package management, layout, etc, all quite good with Debian.

vash

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: vash
For a server, I would go with Debian immediately (as long as Woody has hardware the installer will find). Package management, layout, etc, all quite good with Debian.

vash

What is it about the layout that makes it suitable for a server, more so than other distros?

I just don't get this, you are going to run a server, it would seem obvious to me that anyone wanting to run a server wouldn't care too much about all the bells and whistles but rather about security, minimalism and needed apps...

What are you going to run on your server? ten different window managers, lotsa games and office apps? If so i recommend Debian, Mandrake or Redhat...

If you are going to use your server as a server, i recommend Slackware, you got your one cd, you got your server apps, you got your totally configurable system... As you are not going to install app after app on your server, you don't need a good package manager, pkgtool will do just fine if you don't want to compile the programs yourself...

Hands down, as a server distro, you just cannot beat Slack... (If you're not looking at the *BSD's of course)

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Hands down, as a server distro, you just cannot beat Slack... (If you're not looking at the *BSD's of course)

*Flame On*

Foul messenger of slack, flee thy worthlessness back to the netherworld of "Politics and News" from wence thou didst rise from.

Debian is easier, therefore it is more productive. Its also more flexible, in that there are a great deal of already compiled packages available with no muss and no fuss. There is no numbero onu server OS, but I can't see a good reason to use slack over debian except to be able to call yourself a l33t h4x0r. Slack has no central package management (messy, messy, messy) and a very non-intuitive install.

Oh, and BTW, actually I do need my GUI system. Openoffice doesn't run on a console .

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Hands down, as a server distro, you just cannot beat Slack... (If you're not looking at the *BSD's of course)

*Flame On*

Foul messenger of slack, flee thy worthlessness back to the netherworld of "Politics and News" from wence thou didst rise from.

Debian is easier, therefore it is more productive. Its also more flexible, in that there are a great deal of already compiled packages available with no muss and no fuss. There is no numbero onu server OS, but I can't see a good reason to use slack over debian except to be able to call yourself a l33t h4x0r. Slack has no central package management (messy, messy, messy) and a very non-intuitive install.

Oh, and BTW, actually I do need my GUI system. Openoffice doesn't run on a console .

I would say that that is personal preference, what exactly is it about debian that makes it easier to run as a server OS? how hard is it to type pkgtool and choose where the package is located... or the hard way, type tar -zxvf, cd "untared catalog", ./configure, make, make install? it isn't all that hard...

Mandrake, RedHat, Debian... are all ok, i got no problems with either of them, all have their quirks and all aspire to be desktop distros... that is the difference here, he was asking for a Server OS, you might need your GUI and package management for your desktop everyday use, but running a server is quite different, you would want as few running services as possible, as minimalistic with only the most necessary services and apps running, maybe that is being 1337 but Slack beats Mandrake, RedHat and debian there...

Regarding the non-intuitive install... i take it that you haven't installed Slack lately, huh? it is text based, sure, but you choose your source, your target, which packages to install and where to place the boot manager, i would say that that is pretty simple, if you cannot handle that... well... heh... an XP install would probably drive you mad...

 

[SnapIT]

Oh, and actually... i was in ATOT long before i came into Politics...

 

[Spyro]

I would say that that is personal preference, what exactly is it about debian that makes it easier to run as a server OS? how hard is it to type pkgtool and choose where the package is located... or the hard way, type tar -zxvf, cd "untared catalog", ./configure, make, make install? it isn't all that hard...

*cough*apt-get*cough*

Mandrake, RedHat, Debian... are all ok, i got no problems with either of them, all have their quirks and all aspire to be desktop distros...

Debian...... desktop distro....... Uhhh, dude, desktop distros are the ones that are trying to match windows in simplicity and ease of install. Debian is easy to use and configure compared to the BSDs and Slack, mostly because everything works out of the box, but it won't be a true desktop distro until it gets a better installer, a better kernel, a more sensible release schedule, 24/7 support line, etc. In other words, its not even close to Mandrake and Red Hat, but given some time it will probably arrive their. Do you know why? Because, eventually, all things will become easier and there will be other things to worry about. OS installation should be the least important thing on someone's mind after they power up their computer. Eventually, Linux will have the ability to do a 5 click install with all the flexibility available now, but simplified into a more intuative interface then what is available now. This is the future. The driving force for all of this is productivity.

that is the difference here, he was asking for a Server OS, you might need your GUI and package management for your desktop everyday use, but running a server is quite different, you would want as few running services as possible, as minimalistic with only the most necessary services and apps running, maybe that is being 1337 but Slack beats Mandrake, RedHat and debian there...

Flexibility and ease are key words when talking about an OS, with less work than it takes to get slack running, it would be a ridiculously simple task to get any package-based distro running. It doesn't make any sense to recommend an advanced distro for newbies.

Regarding the non-intuitive install... i take it that you haven't installed Slack lately, huh? it is text based, sure, but you choose your source, your target, which packages to install and where to place the boot manager, i would say that that is pretty simple, if you cannot handle that... well... heh... an XP install would probably drive you mad...

Isn't the latest one slackware 9. In that case I have installed it, and I wasn't really impressed. Oh and I don't quite know what you mean by that XP comment. The actual putting of the software on the drive is only half of the install. The other half involves RTFM.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Oh, and actually... i was in ATOT long before i came into Politics...

Watch your mouth young man, I was lurking in these forums long before you started neffing

Besides, "Politics and News" has a certain ring to it, I like the sound of "Politics and News". Off topic sounds vulgar in comparison.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Spyro

I would say that that is personal preference, what exactly is it about debian that makes it easier to run as a server OS? how hard is it to type pkgtool and choose where the package is located... or the hard way, type tar -zxvf, cd "untared catalog", ./configure, make, make install? it isn't all that hard...

*cough*apt-get*cough*

Mandrake, RedHat, Debian... are all ok, i got no problems with either of them, all have their quirks and all aspire to be desktop distros...

Debian...... desktop distro....... Uhhh, dude, desktop distros are the ones that are trying to match windows in simplicity and ease of install. Debian is easy to use and configure compared to the BSDs and Slack, mostly because everything works out of the box, but it won't be a true desktop distro until it gets a better installer, a better kernel, a more sensible release schedule, 24/7 support line, etc. In other words, its not even close to Mandrake and Red Hat, but given some time it will probably arrive their. Do you know why? Because, eventually, all things will become easier and there will be other things to worry about. OS installation should be the least important thing on someone's mind after they power up their computer. Eventually, Linux will have the ability to do a 5 click install with all the flexibility available now, but simplified into a more intuative interface then what is available now. This is the future. The driving force for all of this is productivity.

that is the difference here, he was asking for a Server OS, you might need your GUI and package management for your desktop everyday use, but running a server is quite different, you would want as few running services as possible, as minimalistic with only the most necessary services and apps running, maybe that is being 1337 but Slack beats Mandrake, RedHat and debian there...

Flexibility and ease are key words when talking about an OS, with less work than it takes to get slack running, it would be a ridiculously simple task to get any package-based distro running. It doesn't make any sense to recommend an advanced distro for newbies.

Regarding the non-intuitive install... i take it that you haven't installed Slack lately, huh? it is text based, sure, but you choose your source, your target, which packages to install and where to place the boot manager, i would say that that is pretty simple, if you cannot handle that... well... heh... an XP install would probably drive you mad...

Isn't the latest one slackware 9. In that case I have installed it, and I wasn't really impressed. Oh and I don't quite know what you mean by that XP comment. The actuall putting of the software on the drive is only half of the install.

Debian aspires to be a desktop os, do you disagree? check out what is included in the distro...

Regarding flexibility, would you please explain what you mean by that?

I would be willing to bet lots of cash on that i can get a Slack system up and running before you have gotten half way through your install on debian...

Ok, the entire install, you run cfdisk, make your partitions, format your partition in desired format, set up swapspace, select source, select target, set root password, choose where to put the bootmgr (lilo) and you are set... how hard is that? it is simple, it is fast and it works...

This is a SERVER he is setting up, if you want to run a SERVER you should go for minimalistic, Slack IS minimalistic, Debian isn't...

And who in their right mind would recommend Debian to a newbie either? Clearly he should go with Mandrake or College Linux?

Slack is easy enough if you can read and comprehend, the interface will not impress you, it was not meant to impress you, it was meant to get the job done and to work, and that it does...

Actually, i find it quite similar to FreeBSD's sysinstall...

 

[TheOmegaCode]

Whatever you do, don't go with Debian. I mean, unless you want your system up in under an hour. Pfff, but who cares about that? Also, Debian makes it too damn easy to install/upgrade your packages, not to mention you have thousands of them at your disposal. The installation is [n]really[/b] hard too. If you install "woody," you'll probably have to hit enter a good 20-30 times!

All of that aside, here's the kicker, the stupid OS is actually organized! Stuff you expect to find in /etc/ is in /etc, where's the fun in that? I figure for all of those reasons I'd say it's more than just a horrible server OS, it's a horrible OS period! So, yeah... Don't install it, it sucks....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: TheOmegaCode
Whatever you do, don't go with Debian. I mean, unless you want your system up in under an hour. Pfff, but who cares about that? Also, Debian makes it too damn easy to install/upgrade your packages, not to mention you have thousands of them at your disposal. The installation is [n]really[/b] hard too. If you install "woody," you'll probably have to hit enter a good 20-30 times!

All of that aside, here's the kicker, the stupid OS is actually organized! Stuff you expect to find in /etc/ is in /etc, where's the fun in that? I figure for all of those reasons I'd say it's more than just a horrible server OS, it's a horrible OS period! So, yeah... Don't install it, it sucks....

So to install an optimized server system, go with debian and hist enter 20-30 times... man... that is amazing...

And you mean it actually follows the conventions of all systems, what you expect to find in etc is there, just like with every other system... how nice...

Nice arguments... too bad it doesn't work that way...

Bottom line...

Each distro has it's own Install proggie, which you prefer is a matter of choice, none of them will set up the servers you want as you want them, the server proggies will do that and it's the same procedure in all distros...

Some distros come with everything and their mother of apps, for a server, you really don't need that, that is why i recommend slack, despite what others say, it's quite simple to install, you cfdisk, you choose your target, you choose your source and which proggies you want installed, of course, you could do the stupid thing, which others have suggested and just hit enter for default, that will give you a full install on your disk... in ALL distros...

Whatever you choose, read up before, it's always easier to do the changes during install (meaning DO NOT JUST HIT ENTER) than afterwards...

 

[TheOmegaCode]

Personally I don't give a rip what anyone installs. Secondly, I was joking...

Ok, the entire install, you run cfdisk, make your partitions, format your partition in desired format, set up swapspace, select source, select target, set root password, choose where to put the bootmgr (lilo) and you are set... how hard is that? it is simple, it is fast and it works...

That's about what you do with Debian. It's not like installing RedHat, as you and I both know... So it's about this much >-< harder than hitting enter 20-30x.

Some distros come with everything and their mother of apps, for a server, you really don't need that, that is why i recommend slack

Slackware 9.0-rc1 (pre-release)


The first release candidate for the upcoming Slackware 9.0 is ready for testing on ftp.slackware.com. Some of the main components included are the 2.4.20 Linux kernel, KDE 3.1, GNOME 2.2, and XFree86 4.3.0, as well as gcc-3.2.2 and the latest development libraries. Enjoy!

Ripped from Slacks .com address. I'd characterize those as bloat for a server...

All in all, your arguments against Debian could easilly be turned around. If there is a point I'm trying to make, it's that all *Nix boxes will get the job done, it's just a matter of how you get it done... I just happen to by partial to Debian. Which installs very little by default, unless of course you run taskel or dselect...

These are just my observations... I don't care to get into a pissing contest of who's OS is better. Like I said before, I'm not going to lose sleep if he decides to install RedHat...

 

[Spyro]

These are just my observations... I don't care to get into a pissing contest of who's OS is better. Like I said before, I'm not going to lose sleep if he decides to install Redhat...

Blast you, OmegaCode! Always ruining my flame wars :disgust:

And to think, you didn't even give me enough time to really get rollin'

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: TheOmegaCode
Personally I don't give a rip what anyone installs. Secondly, I was joking...

Ok, the entire install, you run cfdisk, make your partitions, format your partition in desired format, set up swapspace, select source, select target, set root password, choose where to put the bootmgr (lilo) and you are set... how hard is that? it is simple, it is fast and it works...

That's about what you do with Debian. It's not like installing RedHat, as you and I both know... So it's about this much >-< harder than hitting enter 20-30x.

Some distros come with everything and their mother of apps, for a server, you really don't need that, that is why i recommend slack

Slackware 9.0-rc1 (pre-release)


The first release candidate for the upcoming Slackware 9.0 is ready for testing on ftp.slackware.com. Some of the main components included are the 2.4.20 Linux kernel, KDE 3.1, GNOME 2.2, and XFree86 4.3.0, as well as gcc-3.2.2 and the latest development libraries. Enjoy!

Ripped from Slacks .com address. I'd characterize those as bloat for a server...

All in all, your arguments against Debian could easilly be turned around. If there is a point I'm trying to make, it's that all *Nix boxes will get the job done, it's just a matter of how you get it done... I just happen to by partial to Debian. Which installs very little by default, unless of course you run taskel or dselect...

These are just my observations... I don't care to get into a pissing contest of who's OS is better. Like I said before, I'm not going to lose sleep if he decides to install RedHat...

Actually, they're not so much arguments against Debian as it is for Slackware, my no2 choice would obviously be Debian...

I just happen to like SlackWare because of the precise install and the simplicity, not the ease of use, but the simplicity, you get exactly what you ask for...

If you aren't going to use it, what is the point of having 7 cd's filled with stuff?

I realize that i am a bit hardcore and would love to start by compiling the kernel and then download and compile everything i needed to build the installation... that is just me... but i am always going for the most perfect solution, so far, for a linux server, Slack is the closest i have gotten...

Of course, i would prefer to work with *BSD, but this was about Linux so...

 

[Spyro]

Actually, they're not so much arguments against Debian as it is for Slackware, my no2 choice would obviously be Debian...

I just happen to like SlackWare because of the precise install and the simplicity, not the ease of use, but the simplicity, you get exactly what you ask for...

Ahhh, well if simplicity is what you're looking for......

If you aren't going to use it, what is the point of having 7 cd's filled with stuff?

Ehhh??? Who does this anymore? I thought every used debian netinstall mini-isos, these days.

I realize that i am a bit hardcore and would love to start by compiling the kernel and then download and compile everything i needed to build the installation... that is just me...

You may be a little surprised about this, SnapIT, but except for the compiling, I pretty much follow the same schedule. Judging by your description though, you really should try gentoo. I have a sudden craving for it myself.

but i am always going for the most perfect solution, so far, for a linux server, Slack is the closest i have gotten...

Well, I suppose, if you know what you're doing then its O.k. to find a fitting boot. After all, what would linux be without variety

Of course, i would prefer to work with *BSD, but this was about Linux so...

Isn't OpenBSD built like an electronic super-fortress, now thats a server OS

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Actually, they're not so much arguments against Debian as it is for Slackware, my no2 choice would obviously be Debian...

I just happen to like SlackWare because of the precise install and the simplicity, not the ease of use, but the simplicity, you get exactly what you ask for...

Ahhh, well if simplicity is what you're looking for......

If you aren't going to use it, what is the point of having 7 cd's filled with stuff?

Ehhh??? Who does this anymore? I thought every used debian netinstall mini-isos, these days.

I realize that i am a bit hardcore and would love to start by compiling the kernel and then download and compile everything i needed to build the installation... that is just me...

You may be a little surprised about this, SnapIT, but except for the compiling, I pretty much follow the same schedule. Judging by your description though, you really should try gentoo. I have a sudden craving for it myself.

but i am always going for the most perfect solution, so far, for a linux server, Slack is the closest i have gotten...

Well, I suppose, if you know what you're doing then its O.k. to find a fitting boot. After all, what would linux be without variety

Of course, i would prefer to work with *BSD, but this was about Linux so...

Isn't OpenBSD built like an electronic super-fortress, now thats a server OS

Yeah, but you know, some people still have dialup... download apache packages via dialup once... watch it fail... next time you want it on your cd...

I am working on a solution based on the future 2.6 kernel and source code for the most popular packs, excluding netscape and mozilla but including fluxbox, phoenix (MozillaFirebird)... we'll see what comes out of it...

Oh, and OpenBSD is quite nice, got it installed on a dual boot with NetBSD just to learn those two versions too, i already know FreeBSD, OpenBSD isn't all that hard to learn, neither is NetBSD... And you're probably right, with emulators, ports and packages, you can run anything on Open or Net or Free, for a server... Net or Open would be my choice...

 

[Spyro]

I am working on a solution based on the future 2.6 kernel and source code for the most popular packs, excluding netscape and mozilla but including fluxbox, phoenix (MozillaFirebird)... we'll see what comes out of it...

Now that sounds neat

 

[Rufio]

man.

hahahaa

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Rufio
man.

hahahaa

Originally posted by: Rufio
MAN............

i want to bust out my windows 2000 server now.
ahhahaha

If you have a question ask it, dude, don't jus sit on the sidelines gawking at *nix users engaging in one of the many great debates, though I must admit that they can be both enlightening and entertaining. j/k Seriously though, do you still have enough courage left to use linux or have you purchased MS's server 2000?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Spyro

I am working on a solution based on the future 2.6 kernel and source code for the most popular packs, excluding netscape and mozilla but including fluxbox, phoenix (MozillaFirebird)... we'll see what comes out of it...

Now that sounds neat

Hopefully it will be... hmmm... with transparent compression and a cd-boot a la knoppix (downloading another image now) maybe it could be interesteing...

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Spyro

I am working on a solution based on the future 2.6 kernel and source code for the most popular packs, excluding netscape and mozilla but including fluxbox, phoenix (MozillaFirebird)... we'll see what comes out of it...

Now that sounds neat

Hopefully it will be... hmmm... with transparent compression and a cd-boot a la knoppix (downloading another image now) maybe it could be interesteing...

Hmmm..... You might want to check out knoppix's groups for info about cloop, which is actually a compressed loopback filesystem.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
how hard is it to type pkgtool and choose where the package is located

If you're going to just use a package manager anyways, then why use slackware, and why advocate building from source?

... or the hard way, type tar -zxvf, cd "untared catalog", ./configure, make, make install? it isn't all that hard...

Yeah, it is hard, or no, it's not hard, depending on alot of things. First, if you are just going to blindly configure, make, make install, then you have no business running a server or dissing package management. If you are building from source, you should usually be using at least a few different flags to configure. And that also takes away the flexibility/customization argument, considering that you're just throwing the defaults in. The possibility for conflicts and mismatches is annoying too. If you're compiling something straightforward, then it will be straightforward, but if you're compiling something like php, then have fun.

Debian aspires to be a desktop os, do you disagree? check out what is included in the distro...

Same situation as slack and everything else. You can install no gui, you can install tons of gui, you can install some gui, whatever.

Regarding flexibility, would you please explain what you mean by that?

Whoops, there's an apache vuln, let me update my package, have fun digging up your configure flags to get yours built again. about 2 seconds of typing an an <enter> or two, vs. a whole lot of manual work.

I would be willing to bet lots of cash on that i can get a Slack system up and running before you have gotten half way through your install on debian...

I could get lindows installed in 20 minutes, but I don't.

This is a SERVER he is setting up, if you want to run a SERVER you should go for minimalistic, Slack IS minimalistic, Debian isn't...

How is it minimalistic? You have all kinds of dev libs installed, you have a compiler and gnu tools installed, doesn't sound quite as minimalistic as you want to make it sound. Debian installed to less than 100MB last time I checked.

And who in their right mind would recommend Debian to a newbie either? Clearly he should go with Mandrake or College Linux?

Is anything clear? It depends on the newbie. Some guy came to my last lug meeting, middle aged guy, saying he was a newbie and was curious about installing linux, so I figure he's totally clueless. Well, it turns out he already had FreeBSD installed and uses mutt for email, heh, imagine that.

Actually, i find it quite similar to FreeBSD's sysinstall...

FreeBSD's installer is huge, convoluted, confusing, and true to FreeBSD tradition, does way more than it should, catering to the novice. But uh, that's just my very biased opinion, heh.

 

[Rufio]

Originally posted by: Spyro

Originally posted by: Rufio
man.

hahahaa

Originally posted by: Rufio
MAN............

i want to bust out my windows 2000 server now.
ahhahaha

If you have a question ask it, dude, don't jus sit on the sidelines gawking at *nix users engaging in one of the many great debates, though I must admit that they can be both enlightening and entertaining. j/k Seriously though, do you still have enough courage left to use linux or have you purchased MS's server 2000?

nah i have d/l'ed linux, and i have burned them onto discs. i am just short for time, and i forgot that i would have to devote a lot of time to do this server in linux...which is something that I do not have.

i already have a copy of windows 2000 server 10CALS that I can use.

 

[Sunner]

Slack was the first distro I tried, quite a long time ago.
At the time it was of course uber 31337 and I was a h4x0r

But really, I don't see the point in Slack anymore.
Want a "do it yourself" desktop style distro, try Gentoo.
Want a stable server distro, go Debian, ease of administration is a good thing for a server, and Slack is lacking(no pun).

Plus, I hate that freaking bastardized BSD init :|

 

[drag]

Whatever. Those Init scripts are da bomb. What's so hard about making a script called rc.whatever and copying it to the /etc/rc.d/ directory and making adding a entry to the rc.M or rc.0 or whatever saying "if [ -x /etc/rc.d/rc.whatever ] ; then . /etc/rc.d/rc.whatever ; done"? Plus I like adding amusing little insults at myself interspersed randomly among the init messages.

But seriously, I kinda like it. SLack's simple and it's a good Distro, reasonably advanced when it comes to good ideas, but avoiding riffraff like PAM when it would just complicate things for a desktop. It works and is easily modified and makes sense. It's just no frills-linux, thats all.

Sure Gentoo is slick as all get out, and Debian has that neeto apt-get, but I don't need that stuff. It just tends to get in the way and is just another thing to break.

Now I use Debian, I realy like it, It's low mantainance and has all sorts of nice programs, which I like to try out randomly time to time. And if I had fast machines other then my desktop I 'd use Gentoo on them to expirement with different programs and different patches all the time.

Asking why people use SLackware when they got Debian is akin to asking why people use SuSE when they got Redhat.