[plug] Debian V Redhat for server

[Christian]

"Greg Raftery (Greg Raftery)" wrote:
> 
> Im after some opinions for which distribution to install for a server.
> I am considering Redhat for its purported ease of use and because it
> is a relatively no-brainer install. But I have heard good things about
> Debian on this list, but I know it will take me a bit longer to
> install.

Like Matt says, it's not hard.  The major advantage for Debian will be
keeping the machine up to date.  I've heard countless horror stories
about Red Hat upgrades (and, let's face it, unless you're throwing the
server away after a year then an upgrade is going to be on the cards).
Debian's upgrades on the other hand are virtually always flawless. 
Debian also tends to be slightly more secure, generally better thought
out and with more sensible defaults.  (Please don't let anyone who likes
Red Hat take this personally - it's just my opinion based on my own
experiences and others I've heard.)

> My major concern would be the installation of software, where most
> packages seem to be aimed at installation on a Redhat box. Is there
> much grief associated with installing software on Debian that is aimed
> at Redhat?

As Matt says, usually this isn't a problem.  But by the same token,
you're unlikely to need to - especially on a server.  I don't remember
how many thousand packages the latest Debian has (Slink had over 2250
apparently and I think this has nearly doubled) but almost anything you
could ever want will have been packaged for Debian.  Certainly all the
standard GNU and Unix software will be there.  The only times you might
ever need to install an rpm would be for *some* commercial software and
even then there are often Debian wrappers.

Regards,

Christian.

-- 
Portability is for people who cannot write new programs.
				- Linus Torvalds, jokingly, on Linux's
				  perceived non-portable design in 1992