Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?
-
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
-
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
-
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
-
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Didn't know that. I only use CentOS currently.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Didn't know that. I only use CentOS currently.
-
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
Yep, exactly.
-
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
Yep, exactly.
Let's see... I see you have AD setup, 187 file shares, three different web servers. Would you like me to {self moderdated} up your configuration files, or should I be smart and not touch them?
-
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
Yep, exactly.
Let's see... I see you have AD setup, 187 file shares, three different web servers. Would you like me to {self moderdated} up your configuration files, or should I be smart and not touch them?
Does Ubuntu suffer this?
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
Yep, exactly.
Let's see... I see you have AD setup, 187 file shares, three different web servers. Would you like me to {self moderdated} up your configuration files, or should I be smart and not touch them?
Does Ubuntu suffer this?
I haven't seen it do any crazy configuration overwrites in a long time, but Ubuntu and Debian both sure used to do that.
-
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
I get it often on Ubuntu. Never elsewhere.
-
@Dashrender said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@dafyre said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 said i
Well sure. It is popular. Is it the most stable platform? No, it was never meant to be.
What defines stability in this case?
Knowing security updates won't break config files for one.
I have not had any issues with this on Linux in a long time.
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint (all the same base) are the only major system that feels the need to replace config files on you. If you're doing updates via 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y', it actually stops to ask you about replacing config files. Something that just doesn't happen on RedHat/CentOS.
Yeah ... should I replace it with mine, the distributor's copy, or 4 other options, right?
LOL.
Yep, exactly.
Let's see... I see you have AD setup, 187 file shares, three different web servers. Would you like me to {self moderdated} up your configuration files, or should I be smart and not touch them?
Does Ubuntu suffer this?
Yes. It's the biggest offender.
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
Why are so many things (such as the ML XO instructions) on Ubuntu?
Because of the application vendors choosing Ubuntu as their supported platform. No one chooses it because they like it. Not here, anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
CentOS. Because there is no compelling reason to look at anything else and by default I always start there - it's the best known, most stable, best supported. So unless you have a specific reason to look elsewhere, that's what you use IMHO.
So @scottalanmiller and I were discussing offline the new Liuns server I set up for hosting my own web server.
After this who thread, of course I went with CentOS. I mean, after the above quote, why would anyone choose anything different.
Of course, @scottalanmiller says he uses Fedora for web servers. It would be silly to use anything else.
I of course, say WTF, yell to no one in particular that this is why Linux is so frustrating and confusing, and refer back to this thread, and also the thread he mentions all the distributions, and doesn't even mention Fedora.
So, ML, discuss! Is Fedora the best choice for web servers? Is this thread (where it is said CentOS is the clear choice) misleading? (Feel free to fork this if necessary.)
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@scottalanmiller said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
CentOS. Because there is no compelling reason to look at anything else and by default I always start there - it's the best known, most stable, best supported. So unless you have a specific reason to look elsewhere, that's what you use IMHO.
So @scottalanmiller and I were discussing offline the new Liuns server I set up for hosting my own web server.
After this who thread, of course I went with CentOS. I mean, after the above quote, why would anyone choose anything different.
Of course, @scottalanmiller says he uses Fedora for web servers. It would be silly to use anything else.
I of course, say WTF, yell to no one in particular that this is why Linux is so frustrating and confusing, and refer back to this thread, and also the thread he mentions all the distributions, and doesn't even mention Fedora.
So, ML, discuss! Is Fedora the best choice for web servers? Is this thread (where it is said CentOS is the clear choice) misleading? (Feel free to fork this if necessary.)
I'm a CentOS junkie, and I admit that fact. See, I'm at step #1.
Fedora is where RedHat/CentOS think it will be headed. The major reason for using Fedora over CentOS for a web server right now is that CentOS has an old version of PHP in their repository (5.4), whereas Fedora has a newer version. I'm not sure what version they're up to tho, is it still the 5.x series or 7 now?
-
Either one will work. The benefit to Fedora in this instance is that you will have the most updated packages available to you. Where with CentOS7 you may not have that advantage.
You're probably good with either one. CentOS has a known release schedule and is, kind of, the LTS version of Fedora.
-
@travisdh1 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?:
CentOS. Because there is no compelling reason to look at anything else and by default I always start there - it's the best known, most stable, best supported. So unless you have a specific reason to look elsewhere, that's what you use IMHO.
So @scottalanmiller and I were discussing offline the new Liuns server I set up for hosting my own web server.
After this who thread, of course I went with CentOS. I mean, after the above quote, why would anyone choose anything different.
Of course, @scottalanmiller says he uses Fedora for web servers. It would be silly to use anything else.
I of course, say WTF, yell to no one in particular that this is why Linux is so frustrating and confusing, and refer back to this thread, and also the thread he mentions all the distributions, and doesn't even mention Fedora.
So, ML, discuss! Is Fedora the best choice for web servers? Is this thread (where it is said CentOS is the clear choice) misleading? (Feel free to fork this if necessary.)
I'm a CentOS junkie, and I admit that fact. See, I'm at step #1.
Fedora is where RedHat/CentOS think it will be headed. The major reason for using Fedora over CentOS for a web server right now is that CentOS has an old version of PHP in their repository (5.4), whereas Fedora has a newer version. I'm not sure what version they're up to tho, is it still the 5.x series or 7 now?
I actually figured out how to update that yesterday. I should post that on the "WP on Centos" article @JaredBusch wrote.
I had a few small issues (with a ZIP program) that @scottalanmiller helped me figure out.
-
@BRRABill Thanks for sharing!
-
@BRRABill said in Linux File Server. Which One Would You Pick?:
@travisdh1 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?:
CentOS. Because there is no compelling reason to look at anything else and by default I always start there - it's the best known, most stable, best supported. So unless you have a specific reason to look elsewhere, that's what you use IMHO.
So @scottalanmiller and I were discussing offline the new Liuns server I set up for hosting my own web server.
After this who thread, of course I went with CentOS. I mean, after the above quote, why would anyone choose anything different.
Of course, @scottalanmiller says he uses Fedora for web servers. It would be silly to use anything else.
I of course, say WTF, yell to no one in particular that this is why Linux is so frustrating and confusing, and refer back to this thread, and also the thread he mentions all the distributions, and doesn't even mention Fedora.
So, ML, discuss! Is Fedora the best choice for web servers? Is this thread (where it is said CentOS is the clear choice) misleading? (Feel free to fork this if necessary.)
I'm a CentOS junkie, and I admit that fact. See, I'm at step #1.
Fedora is where RedHat/CentOS think it will be headed. The major reason for using Fedora over CentOS for a web server right now is that CentOS has an old version of PHP in their repository (5.4), whereas Fedora has a newer version. I'm not sure what version they're up to tho, is it still the 5.x series or 7 now?
I actually figured out how to update that yesterday. I should post that on the "WP on Centos" article @JaredBusch wrote.
I had a few small issues (with a ZIP program) that @scottalanmiller helped me figure out.
There are three real ways to update PHP beyond 5.4 on CentOS 7
I personally prefer to use the Remi repository as that is specifically for PHP only and it replaces everything 'in place'. The other methods leave you with multiple version of PHP installed. and you install them specifically as
yum install php56for example.For beginners with only a single app running on a VM, it is silly complication. I understand why it is done, but the people that just want to run a website (WordPress) or file share (NextCloud) do not care or need to care about all that IMO.
