Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?
-
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said
As for why has Bill started with Ubuntu? Because most of the projects that he's deployed so far have come with instructions explicitly for Ubuntu (namely XO and Unifi Controller).
Yeah, that is exactly why.
Plus Mint.
Mint is different - it's a desktop OS, not a server OS, different use case.
But Ubuntu is also a desktop OS if you don't download the server version. AFAIK, Mint only comes in Desktop edition.
True - but when generically talking bout Ubuntu, real Linux admins are never talking about the desktop version unless specifically stated.
-
@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One of the things that makes the various distros useful is that instructions for something on Ubuntu may be old, outdated and broken...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.
-
@Dashrender 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?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller at one point you had mentioned SUSE (openSUSE, I presume) as a suggestion here.
Why was that?
openSuse is what I use, especially Leap. Because I know it well and it has some extensive storage features. But unless you are going to use those features, you don't want to start exploring new distros that require different tools and knowledge unless there is specific need for it.
But if a user (like myself, for this kind of thing) has no prior knowledge of Centos?
I mean at this point, I know Ubuntu pretty well, too.
Everything but CentOS.
Well, you should not have been doing anything else until you were an expert on CentOS
CentOS is far and away the most appropriate for someone with less experience.Says who and why? Where is this magic knowledge that should lead someone to know that CentOS is where they should start?
It's not magic knowledge, it's common knowledge in IT. Just because some people don't know things doesn't make it magic or hard to find. Communities like SW and ML cover this all the time, for example. Or just look at things like my Linux Admin guide, it covers this as part of the course. Look at industry certs. Look at jobs and careers. Look at hosting providers, etc.
Like everything in IT, you need to accumulate base knowledge and apply logic when necessary and watch out for the marketing of people with agendas. How does someone know anything in IT? How did you know to play around with Windows?
-
@Dashrender 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?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller at one point you had mentioned SUSE (openSUSE, I presume) as a suggestion here.
Why was that?
openSuse is what I use, especially Leap. Because I know it well and it has some extensive storage features. But unless you are going to use those features, you don't want to start exploring new distros that require different tools and knowledge unless there is specific need for it.
But if a user (like myself, for this kind of thing) has no prior knowledge of Centos?
I mean at this point, I know Ubuntu pretty well, too.
Everything but CentOS.
Well, you should not have been doing anything else until you were an expert on CentOS
CentOS is far and away the most appropriate for someone with less experience.Says who and why? Where is this magic knowledge that should lead someone to know that CentOS is where they should start?
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
- Fully commercially supported when needed, both from primary vendors and from countless third parties.
- Best known Linux distro for business use.
- Best supported Linux distro for business use cases and applications.
- Most focus on high stability of any Linux distro (versus latest features.)
- Most focus on business technologies (like clustering that is totally absent in ones like Ubuntu.)
- Best understanding of its community for business needs.
- Longest support cycles of any enterprise Linux distro.
- Few small core package list with extensive support.
This could be all on the brochure for CentOS, doesn't make it true - we would just have to trust it, and hear from the community.
Other than researching for yourself, you can make that statement about all knowledge everywhere.
Many of these things are incredibly well known facts, though. Many can be verified, like how support is available, how it has true LTS, how it is the most used (through surveyes running for decades), how the core packages are handled, etc.
-
@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.
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. It adds risk and is one of those bad things about Linux culture that Windows does better. When possible, you want as few distros as possible, all things being equal you want only one. Using a single distro is not a trap, it's a goal.
There is no business class distro that is a derivative of Ubuntu, what are you thinking of? And why would that lead you to using Ubuntu for business on its own?
-
@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.
-
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@Dashrender said
As for why has Bill started with Ubuntu? Because most of the projects that he's deployed so far have come with instructions explicitly for Ubuntu (namely XO and Unifi Controller).
Yeah, that is exactly why.
Plus Mint.
Mint is different - it's a desktop OS, not a server OS, different use case.
But Ubuntu is also a desktop OS if you don't download the server version. AFAIK, Mint only comes in Desktop edition.
What does "edition" mean in that context, though? All desktops are servers if you want them to be. This isn't Windows.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.)
-
@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?
-
@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.
