What's the best Linux server distro for production www server?

freymish used Ask the Experts™
OK, so there's a bunch out there and I've used a few like Red Hat and UBUNTU.  I am curious to know if there's a concensus among the Linuxeratti about which one or two are considered the best.  I realize this could be a bit of a loaded question so :
You heard the rules in your dressing rooms,  obey my commands at all times, protect youself at all times.  Let's make this a good clean discussion.  

Watch Question

Do more with

Expert Office
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
I favour redhat and ubuntu too as they tend to be kept up to date with security fixes and the like
both Redhat & Ubuntu are good.
Pétur Ingi EgilssonSoftware Engineer -- Consultant
Hello freymish,

Debian Linux is very stable and portable and does not need the best of the best hardware (performance wise) and  runs on many diffrent architectures

If your looking for something with a GUI you might want to consitter SuSE Linux Enterprise Server.

I never had any experience with RHEL/Centos....
I've used Ubuntu on a desktop computer.. and under NO circumstances would i recomment it as a server. AVOID IT.


Ensure you’re charging the right price for your IT

Do you wonder if your IT business is truly profitable or if you should raise your prices? Learn how to calculate your overhead burden using our free interactive tool and use it to determine the right price for your IT services. Start calculating Now!

Top Expert 2008

As said before, I am using

Debian SARGE and CentOS/Redhat servers, with no probs
I'm a big fan of the MINIMAL server install.

when you setup the OS it better only install what it has to and then you install the rest as you build the services you need.

the best minimal install is redhat/centos

I run centos on a regular basis.

5.1 runs great on middle of the road hardware and blazes on new stuff.

I don't like debian/ubuntu for server use.

For what its worth, debian is a better server than ubuntu, the debian update cycle is slower and more robustly tested, and in my opinion, just works better when it comes to stability issues.

but I had debian packages, and I hate how when you install samba on a debian box it automatically adds your system accounts so that they can log in to a samba share.

This is a big security risk IMO and I dont like it, and gave up on debian when I figured this out.

Stick with Centos, and if you are running a custom app that requires commercial linux go with redhat.

the centos and redhat installations are almost identical, and the FHS on both are the same.

Centos gets my vote for server any time.
Hi freymish,

If you're looking for a desktop environment, stick with RH/Fedora.  It works.  It's easy to install.  There's a large U.S. support base.

Ubuntu is for the professional unix geek.  It squeezes the most out of the underlying hardware, at the expense of often requiring the most savvy adminstrator.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to go to an open source solution and then put yourself in a position of being at the mercy of the administrator.

Debian isn't a bad fallback.  It too, is widespread and has quite a following.

And of course, if you intend to deploy in Europe you can ignore all of this where it doesn't make a lot of sense to do anything other than SuSe.

RH/Fedora may be the 800 pound gorilla in the U.S.A., but worldwide, SuSe is king.

Good Luck,
RedHat or CentOS.  Super stable.

Roger, Nerds On Site Canada

Do more with

Expert Office
Submit tech questions to Ask the Experts™ at any time to receive solutions, advice, and new ideas from leading industry professionals.

Start 7-Day Free Trial