Ask HN: Web server development platform, Red Hat or Ubuntu
Hi HN folks,
I want suggestion/advice on which OS should I install for my web development. I bought a HP desktop with Intel quad core, 6 GB ram. I did some digging on ubuntu vs. redhat, it’s a mixed message iam getting. I want to install either redhat or ubuntu.
Some background of the development platform. I need a server that can be used for my web server and prototyping of web 2.0 application
Appreciate any help.
8 comments
Why not Debian??
I mean if you're considering Ubuntu, why not try the original? I use Debian as my main development box for exactly the kind of work that you're thinking of doing and I love it.
With Debian you will learn more about Linux than you will running either RH or Ubuntu. And if anyone thinks the Ubuntu repositories are great... They should also try Debian.
I mean if you're considering Ubuntu, why not try the original? I use Debian as my main development box for exactly the kind of work that you're thinking of doing and I love it.
With Debian you will learn more about Linux than you will running either RH or Ubuntu. And if anyone thinks the Ubuntu repositories are great... They should also try Debian.
Thanks for the info. I thought ubuntu is built on debian. Also, redhat and ubuntu are the two linux versions that are being most widely used. So far, i have never tried debian, Let me try this time.
Yeah, Debian if anything has always had a reputation of being a little more of a purists distro, which is well deserved. It has a large commitment to the ideals of free software, which is personified in the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract).
It has also had a reputation for being a harder distro to use... But I think this is nowhere near as true anymore as it used to be.
It's also worthy to note that along with the various BSDs, Debian is one of the most widely used operating systems for web servers. It's very stable and very good, due mainly to the excellent policy that Debian maintains in relation to how packages move through their experimental, unstable, testing and stable branches.
I will never use anything else as my main distro.
It has also had a reputation for being a harder distro to use... But I think this is nowhere near as true anymore as it used to be.
It's also worthy to note that along with the various BSDs, Debian is one of the most widely used operating systems for web servers. It's very stable and very good, due mainly to the excellent policy that Debian maintains in relation to how packages move through their experimental, unstable, testing and stable branches.
I will never use anything else as my main distro.
I use debian on a linode, with YC funded Virtualmin to handle the Control panel, I chose debain because VM has a simple install script for this distro. A wicked setup all round
I personally prefer Ubuntu because the support is great in terms of community as well as repositories.
When you are doing a startup, your time is very limited and I believe you should go for anything that saves time & hassle without trading off much.
Btw if you are on Windows right now, you can still install and use Apache on it. There are differences but it'll be good enough for prototyping.
When you are doing a startup, your time is very limited and I believe you should go for anything that saves time & hassle without trading off much.
Btw if you are on Windows right now, you can still install and use Apache on it. There are differences but it'll be good enough for prototyping.
Thanks. This is something my friend also suggested. We want to get started quickly and the amount of time we have is minimal. The only concern I had was if ubuntu can be used as a server platform. Most of the review talks about ubuntu being a desktop OS. Can I use ubuntu for a server grade system?
Yes, you can get Ubuntu Server Edition from http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition
We have been using it on our servers and haven't had any problems.
We have been using it on our servers and haven't had any problems.
I agree with both qhoxie and sharjeel here, as they both make great points. Ubuntu has a GREAT community support and a huge list of repos, but jusst like qhoxie said, if you're developing it really doesn't matter what you use.
As is the case, in my opinion with anything, just how you use it.
As is the case, in my opinion with anything, just how you use it.
i'm alway wary about 'great support' ... it implicitly means the product is broken people always ask for help
and to be fair less / no support may mean the product is so good that noone complains (it just works TM) or it's simply dead
on topic: contrast ubuntu and openbsd
and to be fair less / no support may mean the product is so good that noone complains (it just works TM) or it's simply dead
on topic: contrast ubuntu and openbsd
Why not both? Install one of them as the base, grab something like VirtualBox[1], and install both of them in virtual machines. Take a week or so, then pick your favorite. As a bonus, once you've picked, you can mimic having a production server on that machine with a Linux VM with just the basics (Apache/lighttpd + interpreter).
I'm actually in a similar boat. I'll be building a dual-core box (intel barebones + cheap processor + 4 GB for <$300) to use as a dev machine in addition to my Mac.
[1] = VirtualBox doesn't support multiprocessors for hosts. You may want another solution, but I haven't investigated the free Linux virtualization market at all (I think VMWare has a free Linux server, but I have no idea of its features). Paravirtualization is another option for a Linux-on-Linux solution, but I think it's too complex for this.
I'm actually in a similar boat. I'll be building a dual-core box (intel barebones + cheap processor + 4 GB for <$300) to use as a dev machine in addition to my Mac.
[1] = VirtualBox doesn't support multiprocessors for hosts. You may want another solution, but I haven't investigated the free Linux virtualization market at all (I think VMWare has a free Linux server, but I have no idea of its features). Paravirtualization is another option for a Linux-on-Linux solution, but I think it's too complex for this.
Actually i bought a desktop with quad core and 6GB RAM. This should be a good candidate for server. Let me ask a simple question, is virtual box a free ware or i need to buy the software?. Also, iam planning to install CVS and mail server on the same box.
try OpenBSD, it's simpler
fast install: ~5 mins default + ~5 mins untar my-essentials.tgz + ~5 mins mercurial sync ... my box is production ready (sans user database)
easy upgrade: untar the tgzs, kernel, sync /etc from newer OpenBSD
no automatic update: it makes default install uniform, when $hit happens, just order another colo server with default install, ftp my-essential and resync
package & port & source: complete freedom ... for contrast, try to build (then patch) vim from source in ubuntu (you can't)
now the 'bad' thing: few forums: but most questions are answerable from OpenBSD's FAQ, afterboot and man pages
less new driver: good luck installing bluetooth (can't)
older software: only firefox 2, no ff 3 in packages and snapshot port (ff3 site lists binaries for xp, osx, and .mar? source ... no idea how to compile .mar)
i use OpenBSD as server (colo) and desktop ... then vnc my mac mini for ff3+firebug (i don't bother with linux emulation, dual boot, vmware etc)
old simple vnc works across OS/arch ... i avoid fancy newer tech. Can you run i386-ubuntu and powerpc-tiger in one desktop?
i had enough of ubuntu, can't install from source, auto-update always break things (i finally quit after my ubuntu retarded to 800x640 and failed attempts at xorg.conf)
oh wait, did i mention about the quality of the OS by OpenSSH maker? Last time my colo lasted 4xx+ days without reboot
fast install: ~5 mins default + ~5 mins untar my-essentials.tgz + ~5 mins mercurial sync ... my box is production ready (sans user database)
easy upgrade: untar the tgzs, kernel, sync /etc from newer OpenBSD
no automatic update: it makes default install uniform, when $hit happens, just order another colo server with default install, ftp my-essential and resync
package & port & source: complete freedom ... for contrast, try to build (then patch) vim from source in ubuntu (you can't)
now the 'bad' thing: few forums: but most questions are answerable from OpenBSD's FAQ, afterboot and man pages
less new driver: good luck installing bluetooth (can't)
older software: only firefox 2, no ff 3 in packages and snapshot port (ff3 site lists binaries for xp, osx, and .mar? source ... no idea how to compile .mar)
i use OpenBSD as server (colo) and desktop ... then vnc my mac mini for ff3+firebug (i don't bother with linux emulation, dual boot, vmware etc)
old simple vnc works across OS/arch ... i avoid fancy newer tech. Can you run i386-ubuntu and powerpc-tiger in one desktop?
i had enough of ubuntu, can't install from source, auto-update always break things (i finally quit after my ubuntu retarded to 800x640 and failed attempts at xorg.conf)
oh wait, did i mention about the quality of the OS by OpenSSH maker? Last time my colo lasted 4xx+ days without reboot
Redhat is a commercial product that you have to pay money to use. CentOS is supposed to be a pretty good server OS.
However, I'd choose Ubuntu (and have) for this reason, amongst others: you can run the same OS on your server as on your desktop. You might be able to do that with Fedora, too, but Fedora is not Redhat's main focus, like Ubuntu is with, well, Ubuntu.
However, I'd choose Ubuntu (and have) for this reason, amongst others: you can run the same OS on your server as on your desktop. You might be able to do that with Fedora, too, but Fedora is not Redhat's main focus, like Ubuntu is with, well, Ubuntu.
Fedora is still free, as are non-supported, white label builds of Red Hat Linux Enterprise.
Fedora is very good about free software, no doubt about that - they deserve a lot of credit for sticking to their guns on that issue. My point was merely that Fedora is sort of where Redhat tests things out, the "real product" is still Redhat Linux. Ubuntu is Ubuntu for everyone though.
Also... I'm biased: I've been using Debian since 1996, so it's what I know best.
Also... I'm biased: I've been using Debian since 1996, so it's what I know best.
As far as productivity and development goes, you won't experience much of a difference. In terms of enterprise history and endorsement, RedHat wins, but that is largely immaterial.
RH = the windows of linux, stay away.
I installed redhat 5.2 enterprise version on my laptop. Looks really good. I have not started any serious work yet. I had lot of issues with sound card drivers and my USB with earlier versions of redhat( rhel 3). This one was piece of cake. It recognized my plantronics and the sound worked without a glitch.
If you don't know the answer, it doesn't matter to you. Flip a coin.