Which Linux ?

[Mslater]

Current economic trends have resulted in a down turn of server sales. Companies are looking even further into their budgets trying to save every penny possible. For this reason we have started to look at the possibility of providing a unix based server solution.

We are currently a Microsoft partner thus all our business solutions are based on the Microsoft server variants so this is something new that will require more specialist staff and a steep learning curve for some of our engineers.

We plan to leave windows at the desktops for obvious reasons but the back end file store, email etc is to be Linux for those that choose the cheaper option.

I think we have decided which flavour of unix fits the bill but any advice at the early stages from members that have a working knowledge would be much appreciated.

[unleashed666]

SUSE would be worth a look for you, and with the enterprise editions you get support aswell if you need it.

currently im running opensuse on my own home server (for the last year) and ive got no complaints. i first started using linux 2 1/2 years ago for a server and found it a bit daunting at first but there is plenty of info on the web to help set it up plus there are a lot of ebooks thesedays that will help with the security side of things ( as that it the most important part of any live server these days)

[Voodoo]

Personally I use Ubuntu on clients, business-wise we use Redhat and SUSE.

[GravityKills]

we had redhat at a former work place, for R&D work.

PS: Linux is great - I learned about 10 years ago, and most things still work the same way.
For someone who's used to Windows bling, Emacs for example looks plain disgusting. But with the 10 keyboard shortcuts I know, it is [I]extremely [/I]productive and I rarely have to touch the mouse. And I can't remember it ever crashing...

[DaveMac]

SUSE or Redhat would be good choices, I believe SUSE support costs are more reasonable. It depends what you would be running on it and how mission critical it is.

[pchristy]

Depends on a couple of things: 1) Do you need commercial support? 2) How clued up are your admins?

If you need commercial support, RedHat or Suse are probably your best bets. If you don't need support, then Slackware or maybe Debian are your best bets. I've used Slackware for years, and its rock stable - even the "development" versions. I believe the same is true of Debian, though I don't have any hands on experience of that.

The various Ubuntus and clones are really intended for home users who don't want to get involved "under the hood" - something that probably isn't really suitable for a commercial operation. And I've never had much success with the various 'buntus anyway!

Mandriva is good if you want a quick and easy install - I'm writing this on a Mandriva 64 bit system now - but it does tend to be a bit bleeding edge, and although it has a good selection of software available "off the shelf", it doesn't have the stability of Slackware.

[jiberjaber]

Like Pete - I have never had much success with Ubuntu, I mostly use Fedora, have been almost since it started. In a dim distant past I used to use Yggdrasil which was mostly because of the cool name, but that is early to mid 90's I think. Slackware was also popular then... then came the Windows age, I dabled for the odd work project where we needed something quite and light to develope something on to log things - I think it was RH back then.... so I didnt really return properly to Linux untill about 2003 I guess. Currently run Fedora on almost everything, large server in the loft with DVBT cards and raid arrays, mail, newsgroups and bittorrent. client PC in the workshop also serving the weatherstation data and a REVO in the front room for media. We have 2 Vista based PCs in the house, but thats just to allow ease of interfacing with the rest of the world! :)

I have tried other flavours, sometimes there are interesting features promised, but like everything Linux, it often tries to promise too much before it is mature enough - once it is mature of course its fine.

Fedora all the way for me, I havent seen a fit replacement for it for sometime.... in the commercial world, RedHat.

[Edders]

Red Hat - Just for the support and its teh onluy one I'm trained in :-)


Edders

[danch]

Solaris 10?

Use it on all our servers at work

Dan

[DaveMac]

Solaris on SPARC hardware is great for mission critical systems, and technologies such as ZFS are great. Unfortunately now with Oracle buying Sun I expect they might try to start charging for things that Sun didn't. That said, many places have went down the road of Linux on x86 hardware due to costs. You can probably buy a whole HP Server for what a Sun/Oracle HBA would cost!

[Mslater]

Thanks guys, Redhat was the primary choice so it's good to know we're off to a good start.

Thanks for your comments.

[cjcj1949]

I've used Ubuntu since 2008. I have had problems using the latest version as soon as it is released, but after 6 months it is ok. I don't think your server software is going to depend on the type of Linux you use as this is just a name for the collection of modules. The stability of the kernel would be more important. The ubuntu update service works well for a given version like 10.10. I have not been able to upgrade from one version to another like 10.04 to 10.10 without the upgrade crashing.

It really depends on how much support you need. If the software you intend to use is standard then Ubuntu should be ok. There are many support options.

Chris