New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.


Comments
MS Windows XP
Windows 3.1
CentOS 7
windows server 2003
Windows 98
Edit:
Debianfor sure!TempleOS
The only holy OS
ms dos with wordstar 3
.pl80
Debian, but my longest running production server is still running CentOS 7.9
It's replacement is already technically in production as of a week or so ago. I'm just keeping this online for the time being for nostalgia.
Both Rocky and Debian are good enough for production. Your choice would depend upon the kind of package management networking and firewall implementation you are comfortable with, assuming your apps are equally supported on either platforms. There might be a few version differences here and there across the kernel and some of the libraries so that may influence your selection as well. Both of them have reliable release cadence so they usually catch up sooner or later on these version differences. In the past, it used to be that RedHat based distros were very stable and received immediate fixes for vulnerabilities and Debian had/had a vast library of packages in it's repository but modern versions have closed that gap.
Debian or ubuntu
My debian ...
I would go with Debian, its simply best and free. If I was compelled to use RHEL based distros I would either go with RHEL itself or Alma! I don't like rocky!!
Cool kids use NixOS these days.
Gentoo
Why?
I don't like Rocky either, Rocky is designed to be strictly bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL while Alma Linux has changed to be ABI compatible with RHEL with as few bugs as possible. In the beginning Rocky and Alma were practically the same thing but these days there are distinct differences and Alma Linux may be a better choice,
Honestly though, your provider has more to do with production readiness than what OS you choose.
TempleOS thx!
Debians...
It's all about the hype. Previously, the pinnacle of Linux distribution hype was Arch Linux, fueled by the "I use Arch, BTW" meme. But its growing popularity gradually eroded the exclusivity.
Now, NixOS has taken its place. Its higher barrier to entry has created a another level of exclusivity, making it the new flex for CS undergrad kids to signaling their tech cred/taste.
Debian where it is possible
Depending on how low end it is.

That's a bit high end compared to 5.25" floppies.
Could you say what the source of this quote is?
Slackware
Debian (i like apt)
Debian & Ubuntu 24.04 LTS
When it comes to stability, isn't FreeBSD more stable than debian or RHEL?
The learning is steeper, and thats the investment one has to consider, but in comparison I think FreeBSD is the most stable and production ready. Please corrct me if I am wrong.
How do you measure that? I tried FreeBSD about year ago, there's not much going for it. The update process is slow and painful, the ecosystem is smaller than your popular Linux distro like Debian, the structure is kinda dated. BSD systems became very niche, perhaps used only by the people who have a lot of experience with it and use it because of nostalgia rather than anything else.
AlmaLinux - latest updated version