Centos 6 or Ubuntu 10.04 LTS - server and desktop
This question is linked to https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27521742/Centos6-save-iptables-configuration.html, which was about iptables, but turned into another question about whether to use Centos or Ubuntu for a server. This server is for php/mysql and tomcat/postgresql webhosting, mostly for personal websites and applications, and some websites for friends. Up till now I have hosted these websites with several providers in managed hosting environments, so I didn't have to bother with server configurations.
I'm more familiar with Ubuntu, have used that as a desktop for more than two years at work, and use it at home as a desktop/server next to my Mac laptop. I have just setup a virtual server which runs Centos 6, and now I run into problems because up till now everything is different.
I haven't made up my mind yet. I know that Centos/RH is the more common choice for a server, and therefor maybe better, as well from a career point of view. We use Centos at work, although someone else handles those servers, installs everything, configures the firewall etc. They don't expect me to do that.
I know how to get things working on Ubuntu, and I think that Ubuntu LTS is stable enough to serve my needs. So if I'm going with Ubuntu, then in three years, it's another world, and I'll see then what I'm going to do. For my job it wouldn't be a big loss, but for a future job it might be a plus to know my way around Centos.
Centos would mean for me that I would change my desktop as well, to Fedora or Centos or something similar. That would make things easier in the long run. It would mean several days of work to get the desktops working, although it might be simpler than I think, I don't know.
So tell me this:
1) Why is Centos better than Ubuntu LTS for a (apache-php-mysql-postgres
2) In what ways does Centos differ from Ubuntu - except for the installer, the missing ufw frontend to iptables.
3) How does a Centos/Fedora desktop work compared to Ubuntu? How is Ubuntu better on the desktop? I know that's the general opinion, but I have no idea how Centos works as desktop.
I'm more familiar with Ubuntu, have used that as a desktop for more than two years at work, and use it at home as a desktop/server next to my Mac laptop. I have just setup a virtual server which runs Centos 6, and now I run into problems because up till now everything is different.
I haven't made up my mind yet. I know that Centos/RH is the more common choice for a server, and therefor maybe better, as well from a career point of view. We use Centos at work, although someone else handles those servers, installs everything, configures the firewall etc. They don't expect me to do that.
I know how to get things working on Ubuntu, and I think that Ubuntu LTS is stable enough to serve my needs. So if I'm going with Ubuntu, then in three years, it's another world, and I'll see then what I'm going to do. For my job it wouldn't be a big loss, but for a future job it might be a plus to know my way around Centos.
Centos would mean for me that I would change my desktop as well, to Fedora or Centos or something similar. That would make things easier in the long run. It would mean several days of work to get the desktops working, although it might be simpler than I think, I don't know.
So tell me this:
1) Why is Centos better than Ubuntu LTS for a (apache-php-mysql-postgres
2) In what ways does Centos differ from Ubuntu - except for the installer, the missing ufw frontend to iptables.
3) How does a Centos/Fedora desktop work compared to Ubuntu? How is Ubuntu better on the desktop? I know that's the general opinion, but I have no idea how Centos works as desktop.
I haven't made up my mind yet. I know that Centos/RH is the more common choice for a serverNot sure about that... Centos is years after RH. Ubuntu is not good choice for server but Ubuntu LTS is very good. I know some companies which decided to support only Ubuntu LTS.
In my opinion you have to use what you know best. If you know one Linux, then you don't need much time to know another.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
For what it's worth, the shared hosting that I use that has Ubuntu and CentOS and other versions of Linux basically never update PHP or MySQL versions precisely to prevent breaking code that is currently running. I have always had to switch servers to get a newer version of any of the LAMP programs.
The issue with those who do not have the option to get the security updates as are provided by RH/Centos, they would either have to make the security adjustments themselves by altering the source and recompiling/installing the same version. Or leave the app unpatched and exploitable.
This are the tradeoffs. But the hosts mostlikely take care of fixing the security issues.
A person may simply run the update and install what the vendor provides and then look at correcting issues if any.
This are the tradeoffs. But the hosts mostlikely take care of fixing the security issues.
A person may simply run the update and install what the vendor provides and then look at correcting issues if any.
Regular yum or apt-get updates only patch the minor versions of the software, which typically include security updates. Major revision updates require more manual intervention. Unless your PHP or MySQL makes use of the bugs, you're not quite so likely to break PHP or MySQL during regular updates.
I think some of the shared hosting services just don't patch because it's too much work for them in the off chance a patch breaks hundreds or thousands of websites simultaneously. They'd rather place the blame on the hackers for breaking your site. Then they can charge you to migrate or update to the next level of service. If you manage only a handful of servers yourself, it makes sense to patch.
I've used both Centos and Ubuntu and it really is up to personal preference. You certainly can configure both to the same level of user experience and functionality, which is why I suggested going with the one you're more comfortable working with.
I think some of the shared hosting services just don't patch because it's too much work for them in the off chance a patch breaks hundreds or thousands of websites simultaneously. They'd rather place the blame on the hackers for breaking your site. Then they can charge you to migrate or update to the next level of service. If you manage only a handful of servers yourself, it makes sense to patch.
I've used both Centos and Ubuntu and it really is up to personal preference. You certainly can configure both to the same level of user experience and functionality, which is why I suggested going with the one you're more comfortable working with.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I've decided to use Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS. Debian is an option though, and I'm going to take a look before making my final decision. Centos is no option anymore at the moment.
Good choice,
Nevertheless, I still think that debian for a server is much better.
It's faster, has better technical support and doesn't have "frills" which ubuntu has....
I'm a debian and ubuntu fan. The latest ubuntu distro is less unix "embedded" than debian.
I would never install debian as a desktop, it's a pain in..... ubuntu is just more user friendly.
it's getting more and more similar to osx though ....
Nevertheless, I still think that debian for a server is much better.
It's faster, has better technical support and doesn't have "frills" which ubuntu has....
I'm a debian and ubuntu fan. The latest ubuntu distro is less unix "embedded" than debian.
I would never install debian as a desktop, it's a pain in..... ubuntu is just more user friendly.
it's getting more and more similar to osx though ....
I'm not sure that being similar to a mac is necessarily a good thing. :) It may be good for a single user desktop, but it's not designed well for a multi-user lab or server setting.
And debian is certainly better on a server, although you could trim down ubuntu to be more debian like too.
I've installed the latest ubuntun 11.10 and pretty much immediately removed unity. I just happened to have the 11.10 CD so I decided to try it. Even with the slightly older ubuntu, I immediately disabled and removed several of their "features" that really aren't desirable in a multi-user lab desktop environment.
The nice thing about ubuntu is PIE https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features#Built_as_PIE
Another nice thing is that root is automatically not allowed a password login through ssh compared to redhat.
And debian is certainly better on a server, although you could trim down ubuntu to be more debian like too.
I've installed the latest ubuntun 11.10 and pretty much immediately removed unity. I just happened to have the 11.10 CD so I decided to try it. Even with the slightly older ubuntu, I immediately disabled and removed several of their "features" that really aren't desirable in a multi-user lab desktop environment.
The nice thing about ubuntu is PIE https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features#Built_as_PIE
Another nice thing is that root is automatically not allowed a password login through ssh compared to redhat.
ubuntu was built on being the desktop alternative. Going into the server arena was a second step to expand on its users.
Any linux system can function as a server or a multi-user environment. The admin/group have to know what the benefits of using one versus another.
Ubuntu is more towards the initial windows transplant that needs a GUI and any window that has a black background sends shivers down their spine.
Run centos and often install the Graphical packages while disabling the graphic mode. This provides for a way to use X-windows (Xming) and send xterm from servers back to the desktop as well as some configuration tools that only work with GUI i.e. cluster admin, etc.
Any linux system can function as a server or a multi-user environment. The admin/group have to know what the benefits of using one versus another.
Ubuntu is more towards the initial windows transplant that needs a GUI and any window that has a black background sends shivers down their spine.
Run centos and often install the Graphical packages while disabling the graphic mode. This provides for a way to use X-windows (Xming) and send xterm from servers back to the desktop as well as some configuration tools that only work with GUI i.e. cluster admin, etc.
ASKER
Thanks for all the feedback!!!
My final decision is to go with Debian 6, 32 bit. The time spent on the ubuntu server is lost, but that's not a big problem, and I think this is indeed the best choice as almost everything is similar to ubuntu. The first website is online...
My final decision is to go with Debian 6, 32 bit. The time spent on the ubuntu server is lost, but that's not a big problem, and I think this is indeed the best choice as almost everything is similar to ubuntu. The first website is online...
I had planned on setting up both Ubuntu and CentOS servers here but haven't gotten around to it. Older computers are adequate for test setups and I happen to have two identical old Dells.