CentOS, I had to try it
I’ve been busy making some websites and paid 5 dollars for some L.A.M.P hosting, but after being very frustrated by the server not functioning properly I decided I would get up my own server. I meditated about the best operating system for the job, I wanted it to strictly run open source software so Windows Server was obviously not an option.
I was deciding between FreeBSD, CentOS or ArchLinux.
Since I was using arch at the moment and got very used to it, I thought building a server on it would be a good idea but I was curious as to why the so called “server distros” were better at being servers than any other distro with the right software installed, and installing software nowdays is quite painless. So I was between FreeBSD or CentOS.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 2231 reads
- PDF version
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
re: CentOS
Some people should stick to cPanel and Shared Hosting ONLY!!!!
Who loads a freaking GUI on a SERVER? Or multimedia/Sound Apps? What part of SERVER is unclear? CentOS does NOT use old apps/kernel/etc - if you're going to write a review about it, perhaps you could spend a few minutes on the CentOS website and read about BACK PORTING.
Geeeeeeeeeeesh.
re: Who loads a freaking GUI on a SERVER?
uh, Windows does.
people with considerable time spent in Windows serverland don't know much else beyond the GUI.
When they come to Linux, first thing they ask is "Where's the gui?"
I'm kind of surprised you of all folks would miss that.
Big Bear
re: Windows Server GUI
Keep up Bear, Windows 2008 Server Core has no GUI.
If you want one (for the cli challenged) you can install it.
Besides - the article is about someone loading CentOS Server and a GUI desktop - so my comment was directed towards LINUX servers.
I know
Yes, Windows FINALLY changed to non GUI after god knows how many years of GUI only. So YAY Windows, they have finally gotten their servers of the GUI teat for two whole years now.
Where is Linux trying to get many of it's new users from? especially tech types? Windows, that's where.
For those folks who still have Windows servers and training on said Windows servers that predate that very very long two years time frame, they are used to and will look for a GUI.
For folks on Linux for a long time, like you and I, no, we don't need a gui on our server boxes, we have been good little geeks and done it the 'Linux" way.
For others making 'the jump' they may not be so comfortable. personally, I don't really care if someone uses a GUI or not on their server. After all, it's their server, not mine.
For those of you who do want to consider using a gui on your Linux server, not only is it fine if that's what you choose to do, but it is SOOO easy to have a server that boots into console by default and have an option to reboot into GUI by selection. That makes having GUI on server even safer.
Thousands of tech schools teach new technicians, etc.. to use gui tools, almost to the point of exclusivity, it's scary but it's also not hard to expect those folks trained in such a way to look for tools similar to what they were trained on.
just my two cent.
Big Bear
re: I know
Run Level 3 is good compromise.
But I really don't see that many useful GUI applets for managing Server Services. Most are clunky at best, and woefully incomplete at worst.
If you need a GUI, install Webmin. No actual "GUI" on the server, yet a nice friendly Web GUI for those afraid of the CLI (although Webmin like most graphic applets is still incomplete feature-wise when compared to the cli).
I guess it boils down to I just don't see the need for a GUI on the server. It's not rocket science, and unless you're a weekend server admin - you're going to NEED to know the CLI sooner or later so why not just buckle down and learn it? (****note to Bear - this statement refers 99.364% to Linux Servers ONLY!****)
I agree
I have said pretty much the same things as you just have in other places.
If a Win tech is making a committed change to linux, they need to invest in cl training. point blank.
however, for small scale servers and training purposes, having GUI isn't a killer deal.
I agree on Webmin as well, top of the line for remote gui access. and yes, still not able to be as precise as cli will get you, but hey, for 'regular' maintenance, it sure can be handy.
To me, having a new tech start with using GUI is sometimes better because they are more comfortable and less prone to clumsy mistakes or mistakes made because of being intimidated by a new system, the gui makes it easier.
As they get more involved, they will seek out the cli methods because they will over time notice how frustrating gui management can be. but it happens in their time frame and again, they are more confident because it's their pace and decision.
So I don't deride folks, I figure it's just a matter of time till they get to cli and in the meantime, they will make less dumb errors.
Big Bear