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
i cant take you seriously if you dont use either almalinux or rhel
well, i don't use either but i'm a serious person
Chop chop slinky
Get back to real work
I will be even more less serious and run OpenWRT with Docker.
This makes sense! Maybe on my next reinstall I'll give Debian a crack
Debian/Ubuntu mixed.
i still remember using Ubuntu before then switched to debian
I always used Ubuntu. I should really give Debian a try.
On desktop though, Linux Mint Debian. I wouldn't consider Ubuntu for desktop.
Cringe!!!!
Just like you
Ubuntu = Debian + bloat.
If you want it for desktop use, you do you, but it doesn't belong on a server.
Before I switch all my idlers to Debian I use Ubuntu Server as default. Then I realize the bloated, and later I switch to Debian and now pretty okay with everything.
This is a big question. For many, Linux is just going to be better.
The Linux ecosystem has tended to change often and it's a non-homogenous setup between kernel and userspace. Normally, this doesn't matter much, but with BSDs you have a kernel and userspace that are developed in tandem. I tend to find that BSDs change more logically and maturely. This varies from one to the other, of course.
Linux, of course, depends on the flavor.
Arch Linux, when I used it, was nice that its packages weren't ancient. But things broke pretty often. It may be better now, but it was not a stable setup for me.
Debian is generally pretty stable, but there's some major issues. One is that packages are so out of date, and they like to backport packages. There's countless packages that should be on the latest version, at least of a given branch. But Debian will run very outdated packages, occasionally backporting, and sometimes doing a very bad job of it (remember Debian's openssl bug?)
I am pretty sure both use systemd. Debian definitely does. I have been bitten by a number of systemd bugs. It can work very well, but it really is a giant setup that is highly invasive. Takes over networking, timers, TTYs, etc. There are benefits, but I'd rather not deal with it.
Debian also automatically starts packages when you install them, and restarts them when you upgrade them. If you use configuration management, and/or your uses are slightly out of the ordinary, this is a huge painpoint.
Another thing, Debian's d-i autoinstall is awful. It does work, but is it ever painful!
FreeBSD was good to me for a while, but became completely unusable on my laptop as a daily driver, so I gave OpenBSD a try and have been (mostly) quite happy with it. FreeBSD is much more "advanced" with Jails, ZFS, and Bhyve has more capabilities than OpenBSD's VMM.
OpenBSD feels a little like the dark ages sometimes. Developed on CVS, no automatic /dev (it's very busy and pre-populated with stuff you don't need), and its FFS is not bulletproof. VMM only supports one vCPU per guest. But it works way better than FreeBSD as a daily driver. Changes tend to make sense and be incremental. The security model is quite sensible (pledge/unveil.) On the server side it's very much a batteries included setup, like Python. You can do an awful lot with it out of the box. It tends to be more polished and homogenous. Either it won't support something outright, or it's nicely documented. I like the community as well.
I had been noticing for a few years that some very interesting developers were focused on OpenBSD. It seems like it's drawn some really bright folks. FreeBSD is better on paper, but in practice it has some serious bugs that never got any attention (not that OpenBSD doesn't have any bugs, either.)
I think a lot of Linux admins are annoyed by churn in the init space, how to do network configuration, etc. Feels like it changes every few years. Too many ways to do the same thing. OpenBSD's configuration is sometimes more limited, but way easier to live with.
I hope this answers something for you. I think most are better served by Linux, but some are definitely happier on a BSD. And some will use a different Linux distro and even a different BSD per server, as they all tend to focus on different areas.
me im suaging nyarch linux nyahh :3 im vwery sewious
Used to be a Centos 5-7 user but nowadays I just Debian/Ubuntu everything personally. Professionally using RHEL at work.
Freebsd,gentoo,debian done allready.Now will try NetBSD.
when things get too popular, idiots start using it too. then it becomes idiot proof at some point. removing all the fun of losing your fingers when you do something wrong.
only 1 procent is using Mac transgender OS?
debian as always
Ubuntu 24 on all my VPS servers. Running Docker, Caddy, Python and Java stacks. Switched from cPanel about a year ago and never looked back – much more control and cheaper.
Very much so! Thanks for taking the time to write all that. You have convinced me to spin up an OpenBSD machine. Will be interesting at least!
I prefer windows server.
Windows Small Business Server?
My Plex/seedbox/workstation server is Windows. All the rest, either Debian or RHEL, but mostly Debian.
cpanels are the new windows. Get rid of them while you can.
Not in the list but FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. So far NetBSD is my favorite.
Debian taking more than half the votes is a total landslide. I guess for a budget VPS, you just can't beat that 'no bloat' factor and stability. I’m actually surprised Ubuntu is that far behind(
Debian 13 servers, Linux Mint for home desktop
Its proven to be a rigged poll