[SlugLUG] Debian As A Server

[cerise at armory.com]

I'd recommend Ubuntu over Debian.  It uses the same packaging system and
is otherwise just like Deb.  What it doesn't have is all the stupid politics.

Ubuntu was using X.org almost immediately after it came out.  Debian kept
using an outdated version of XFree86 for around a year or so because the X 
team couldn't decide how they wanted to migrate people.

Incidentally, many of the people I know who were left in the cold by that
started using the already available Ubuntu packages.  Of course, this hit 
them with dependency issues down the road -- another reason I don't recommend
Deb.

If you really want a distro that's withstood the test of time, use Slackware.

-Phil/CERisE

On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 13:50 -0700, Rohan Sheth wrote:
> Hiya, I know some of you guys are busy with finals and whatnot, so
> answer this question whenever you get a chance...
> 
> I have been thinking about buying a new dell poweredge server but I
> can't decide what to run on it.  The server's main purpose will be web
> serving (mysql/httpd/etc) and if that was the only thing it did, I would
> be running Debian Stable on it.  However, it will also act as a
> thin-client server meaning that it will run all the applications that
> users on the network use.  Therefore, debian stable is a bit outdated
> for it, considering most users like running relatively recent software. 
> Therefore, I have been having trouble deciding between debian unstable
> and testing.  I realize that unstable is the best choice in terms of
> recent version releases, but as this is also a web-server I need
> something that is relatively secure and "stable."  I am strongly
> considering Debian Testing because of the reasons listed above, but I
> would love additional opinions.  While some of you may recommend
> completely separate distribution of Linux (which is fine), I prefer
> Debian because of its steadfast history of stability and its rampant
> recognition.  What should I use?
> 
> --Rohan
>