Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said
What does "edition" mean in that context, though? All desktops are servers if you want them to be. This isn't Windows.
There are not desktop and server variants?
(Asking a serious question.)
Nope. There are desktop and server (and cloud, and minimal and etc. etc.) "packages" but not versions. All of them are all the same, just some include the GUI and some don't, some include LIbreOffice, some don't. It's all just down to what a default set of installed tools is. But CentOS is CentOS, Suse is Suse, Ubuntu is Ubuntu. I don't know of any system that has two different installs beyond just package lists.
-
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
-
What are the differences between debian LAMP and CentOS LAMP? Or any functionally similar setups between the two distros? Anything other than a couple folders in a different place? yum vs apt?
-
@momurda said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
What are the differences between debian LAMP and CentOS LAMP? Or any functionally similar setups between the two distros? Anything other than a couple folders in a different place? yum vs apt?
They are identical at the application level. The main differences are in support. Same functionality, though. For core functionality, everything is the name.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
So something like this (server vs desktop) is all just marketing?
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
So something like this (server vs desktop) is all just marketing?
Yep.
I can start with a server and install any desktop I want on it, it'll act exactly like a "desktop" version.
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
So something like this (server vs desktop) is all just marketing?
Not marketing, but you are carrying over Windows-isms that aren't implied. It's just different sets of packages, nothing more. It's the same product. Install the desktop and tell it to switch to the server package list and magically, it's a server. INstall the server and tell it to install the desktop GUI and magically it is a desktop. They pre-bundle them for easier download, but that's all that it is. Adding complexity to make ex-Windows people not freak out but how easy Linux is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
So something like this (server vs desktop) is all just marketing?
Not marketing, but you are carrying over Windows-isms that aren't implied. It's just different sets of packages, nothing more. It's the same product. Install the desktop and tell it to switch to the server package list and magically, it's a server. INstall the server and tell it to install the desktop GUI and magically it is a desktop. They pre-bundle them for easier download, but that's all that it is. Adding complexity to make ex-Windows people not freak out but how easy Linux is.
As has been discussed many times, it is hard not to when coming from the Windows world.
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Remember, what makes Workstation and Server on Windows different is... licensing, not code. So when outside of Windows and there is no licensing, what do people imagine could be the difference between them?
So something like this (server vs desktop) is all just marketing?
Not marketing, but you are carrying over Windows-isms that aren't implied. It's just different sets of packages, nothing more. It's the same product. Install the desktop and tell it to switch to the server package list and magically, it's a server. INstall the server and tell it to install the desktop GUI and magically it is a desktop. They pre-bundle them for easier download, but that's all that it is. Adding complexity to make ex-Windows people not freak out but how easy Linux is.
As has been discussed many times, it is hard not to when coming from the Windows world.
But super important to remember... it is Windows making things hard, not Linux.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
I am also a Ubuntu guy. Why? Most of the systems I enjoy using are derivatives of Ubuntu -- or Ubuntu itself. Does that mean I wont' use another distro? No.
One of the things that makes the various distros useful is that instructions for something on Ubuntu may be old, outdated and broken... While the CentOS instructions are newer and actually work... Or vice versa.
Don't let yourself get tied into the "trap" of using just one distro.
Now this is a double edged sword. If you stick to one distro, you will probably get to know it VERY well. Plus anyone coming in behind you will only need to know that one distro. Of course it does suffer in that another distro might do a specific task more efficiently than your main one, so you have to decide if the efficiency loss of management is worth the gain in whatever from the new distro.
Also, you get to use a single set of tools, learn fewer commands, know your patch cycles and needs better, etc.
exactly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Very much the opposite. Don't get sucked into the "distro sprawl" trap. Having a "different OS for every task" is difficult to do well and expensive to support.
I do agree with this. But do you find what works well for "this task" and use that for every task, even those it may not be best suited for?
Yes, there is extremely little call for switching to another OS, let alone a different Linux OS. Can you think of any example where you felt this was needed and/or valuable?
I'm glad you said this because I was kinda thinking this too, sure another OS might be better, but again, back to my comment, so much better that it's worth the hassle of learning something else so you can support it?
-
@coliver said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
I am also a Ubuntu guy. Why? Most of the systems I enjoy using are derivatives of Ubuntu -- or Ubuntu itself. Does that mean I wont' use another distro? No.
One of the things that makes the various distros useful is that instructions for something on Ubuntu may be old, outdated and broken... While the CentOS instructions are newer and actually work... Or vice versa.
Don't let yourself get tied into the "trap" of using just one distro.
Now this is a double edged sword. If you stick to one distro, you will probably get to know it VERY well. Plus anyone coming in behind you will only need to know that one distro. Of course it does suffer in that another distro might do a specific task more efficiently than your main one, so you have to decide if the efficiency loss of management is worth the gain in whatever from the new distro.
How often is that the case though? There are very few applications that can't be installed on all the mainstream distributions. Only a few more that aren't natively built into one of the package managers.
But I come back to - WHY are there so many version - and what it's looking like is that hobbyist have just forked a whole lot of version, and even started a few of their own, because they wanted something specific that didn't exist the main vains of business backed Linux distros.
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Very much the opposite. Don't get sucked into the "distro sprawl" trap. Having a "different OS for every task" is difficult to do well and expensive to support.
I do agree with this. But do you find what works well for "this task" and use that for every task, even those it may not be best suited for?
Yes, there is extremely little call for switching to another OS, let alone a different Linux OS. Can you think of any example where you felt this was needed and/or valuable?
I'm glad you said this because I was kinda thinking this too, sure another OS might be better, but again, back to my comment, so much better that it's worth the hassle of learning something else so you can support it?
It's far more likely that you'd find a need for a Windows server than for a different Linux OS. SOmetimes those of us who have reasons for having multiple OSes use "whatever OS is suggested by the app vendor", but for most businesses it's generally worth putting in some effort to use the fewest OSes reasonable, which is often two (Windows and one Linux OS in most cases.)
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
Mostly called that by Windows people
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
But I come back to - WHY are there so many version
Because everyone thinks that there is either a good business opportunity or that it will be cool to have their own distro. Since anyone can make one, everyone does. Why are there so many restaurants when you could just go to McDonald's? Because nothing stops any local person from opening a diner wherever they want.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
Mostly called that by Windows people
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
Mostly called that by Windows people
I'll disagree - you just need to look through ML and see many threads that generically refer to Linux and not a distro. As a non Linux user, this generic use of the term just serves to confuse when, as I've now started to understand, each distro is unique but similar.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
Mostly called that by Windows people
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
And because they are all called Linux, the learning IT group just gets to live in utter confusion.
Mostly called that by Windows people
I'll disagree - you just need to look through ML and see many threads that generically refer to Linux and not a distro. As a non Linux user, this generic use of the term just serves to confuse when, as I've now started to understand, each distro is unique but similar.
I think that you just proved my point. You went to a totally non-Linux community famous for being mired in Windows centric thinking and they use the term wrong there often. Exactly what I was saying.
-
Where there is often confusion is that applications are normally compatible with the Linux layer and so people will say "runs on Linux" because it does - on any Linux based OS. They are talking about a compatibility layer, not the OS, in that case.
-
@Dashrender you will notice a continuous problem on SW where people refer to things like VMware ESXi, Mac OSX, FreeBSD, IBM's AIX and Solaris as Linux, too. Clearly, they are not. Some people call the "Ubuntu on Windows" thing Linux too, which it is not at all (zero Linux there.) The amount of calling "anything not Windows" Linux on SW is extreme and highlights that the issue is the non-Linux community just throwing the term around, and not a problem with Linux itself. It's used much like cloud or SAN is over there (and many other places.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
CentOS is also the Dom0 of XenServer. So you get great overlap there for people using that.
yet the XO guys are using Ubuntu instead of CentOS
Ubuntu's kool-aid is hard to resist.
It's marketed to non-IT and/or non-Linux people heavily, which is part of what makes it bad for Linux people.... so much of how it is used and why people use it is bad.
It's marketed heavily to them but a lot of devs use it too.
They do a lot of interesting things. Juju, MaaS, LXD, Landscape, etc. Things that are really useful that no one else has.
