CentOS or Ubuntu?

[SpankMe]

Gonna drop Fedora on the next server upgrade. Tied of the short support time for each release. So am looking for comments on CentOS and Ubuntu from people who have experience running either as a server. Not interested in what they are like for workstations.

CentOS (http://www.centos.org/) is RedHat based, so will be very familiar.

Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/) is Debian based, but nothing wrong with learning a new distro. The server edition has a guaranteed 5 years support which is swaying me towards Ubuntu. And their website is nicer. :p

My main concern is support. How often/quickly updates for security/bug fixes are released and how long each version is supported for.

[Mental Trousers]

We use CentOS for our servers and workstations at work. Can't really fault it. The only problem I have with it is that it's Red Hat/Fedora based and I've never been a fan. However, seems to be easier to use and maintain because it doesn't seem to be as far removed from your average *nix than Fedora is. I always found it bloody annoying trying to figure out what the equivalent command for something in Red Hat was. But it's a decent base OS for running a server.

I've always preferred doing things using sudo rather than login in then going su. Mainly because I have a habit of walking away from my keyboard for undetermined lengths of time and leaving the thing logged in as root. I've also always preferred Debian over most (although I still stubbornly stick with Slackware on some machines) and use it on my home server.

Main point of difference is that CentOS installs SElinux (Security Enhanced Linux) by default whereas ubuntu doesn't. Unfortunately CentOS installs X and all the gui crap that isn't needed while ubuntu server installs command line only.

The Debian based distro's have an apt source for security related patches that you can update from every day without updating anything else on the system. Haven't found anything like that for CentOS.

The current ubuntu server release isn't (I think) an LTS version, but the previous version is with support for 5 years.

[RantyDave]

I've used debian for a few years over a few things and have never had a problem. So, my vote would be for debian, but if you're going to insist on one of the two I guess it would be ubuntu.

BTW, considered putting the site on a VPS slice? Slicehost (http://www.slicehost.com/) are cool and support two flavours of ubuntu, debian and centos. Even gentoo for the freaks.

Dave

[Maha]

As long as its says.....''thank you for login in Maha'' when I do, then I dont care what you do you Spank....Cheques in the mail.

I mean that in the nicest possible way :2thumbsup

[Dargor]

Debian ftw. What advantage does ubuntu-server-version have over debian, more politics?

Debian based package management is the best i've found.

[rainman]

Debian ftw. What advantage does ubuntu-server-version have over debian, more politics?

Debian based package management is the best i've found.

Which is what Ubuntu has as well, being Debian based... Although, yum has caught up a bit with apt and isn't as bad as the rpm management tools that were there back in the day that I last had to deal with it (rug or something? horrid).

And to answer your question re advantage - Ubuntu is a little less anal about GPL compliance from what I can see, though that's more relevant for a desktop than a server.

[breakaway]

Debian/Ubnutu. I run debian on all my servers.

Yum is arse. That said the last fedora I used was Fedora Core 6.


My main concern is support. How often/quickly updates for security/bug fixes are released and how long each version is supported for.

Debian are good with bug fixes. And Ubuntu has a LTS version (Long Term Support) which is good.

[CookMySock]

Ubuntu LTS. As long as you don't use it as a development box, or build stuff from source packages, it should sit there solid as a rock for eons.

Make sure the hardware you run it on is super-generic so there are no issues with wierd module-assistant stuff.

Update it manually every few days or weekly. Run the update at such a time where it wont keep you up all night should borkage occur.

Steve

[Bren]

for my two cents worth I have found Ubuntu ultra reliable for a home PC. CentOS I have had no experience with, but Ubuntu is bloody good....I am currently on Suse and hate it!

[ajturbo]

my thought on this matter???



thats right.. they are blank

[Sable]

Ubuntu send out free install CDs, which I use as coffee coasters.

[turtleman]

Main point of difference is that CentOS installs SElinux (Security Enhanced Linux) by default whereas ubuntu doesn't. Unfortunately CentOS installs X and all the gui crap that isn't needed while ubuntu server installs command line only.



CentOS 5 gives you the option during install to disable the SElinux, so shouldn't pose any problems.
The gui crap can be biffed during install too. You just need to take your time and do it all up front, not just accept defaults during installation...

I run CentOS on a server running apache etc and Database (MySQL and Oracle 10g) and it performs quite well. Haven't had any issues with security/patching etc.
May be a little different if you want it for workstation - would look at ubuntu for that, even if it was just to have a play...

[Mental Trousers]

CentOS 5 gives you the option during install to disable the SElinux, so shouldn't pose any problems.
The gui crap can be biffed during install too. You just need to take your time and do it all up front, not just accept defaults during installation...

I run CentOS on a server running apache etc and Database (MySQL and Oracle 10g) and it performs quite well. Haven't had any issues with security/patching etc.
May be a little different if you want it for workstation - would look at ubuntu for that, even if it was just to have a play...
I use CentOS with SElinux on a couple of important machines. They're hard as fuck to break into but that makes it a real pain in the arse to setup stuff on them.

Out of the box CentOS with SElinux is way more secure. Ubuntu has dedicated critical security fixes apt sources you can update from daily but CentOS you have to watch out for vulnerability announcements and patch them yourself.

[ajturbo]

I use CentOS with SElinux on a couple of important machines. They're hard as fuck to break into but that makes it a real pain in the arse to setup stuff on them.

Out of the box CentOS with SElinux is way more secure. Ubuntu has dedicated critical security fixes apt sources you can update from daily but CentOS you have to watch out for vulnerability announcements and patch them yourself.
hey .. thanks for that info... it will be very handy when we next have a site meeting.. the boys will love to know this...

[limbimtimwim]

Ubuntu. I hate RPM so much I cry when I have to deal with it.

Which is stuff all these days.

[enigma51]

My experience.

After reading this i thought it might be a good idea to test our rhel dev server with centos (Purely to save money).

First off we where solely windows and i got employeed to do some profilers for the company so my first choice was unix HP-UX or similiar. Way to exspensive! So it was settled on RHEL and fedora for some smaller things.

Centos gave me the "same" basis as RHEL ie not realy a desktop os but more focused on server thingy's at least thats according to there website.
I found that statment a bit bizarre seeing that i had to source alot of "server monitoring" software from the web.

Oracle needed alot of tweaks to get it working and with mysql i needed to change the config alot more than what i have had to do on RHEL.

Still nothing to major.

The real problems was when i transfered the c and c++ apps (I use a combination depending on what i need) All twelve apps compiled fine but after putting it throught its passes I found some realy odd results. I first thought i might have installed somehting wrong but after investigation i found that they way centos maps its memory is alot different to Fedora or RHEL and the reason why im getting different results is the system calls specific to memory being different. Its not a major because the skew is with in tolerance and if you dont map more than 2GB section files you should see no difference.


Will we be going to CentOS? Dont know RHEL gives us good support and the dev server is now free as we dont want support on it.

Is it good as a web server? Im sure it nothing worse than RHEL. Althought the security thing was a pain in the ass to sort out. Centos seems to block everything and you decide what you open. RHEL seems to block a subset and then you decided what else.
I think CentOS is more secure due to its policy.

Support on it? Im still waiting for some answers on question about the mmap.


The only thing i realy learned from this is that not all linux systems are equal but still a shit load better than any windows os