[pm-h] Linux Distribution Selection

[Reini Urban]

The redhat derivatives fedora and centos all use a pretty broken perl package, but has overall much better security than debian derivatives (ubuntu, mint).
cpanel on top of centos comes with it’s own perl which is much better, and has better security updates.

besides cpanel my current favorite is also archlinux, which has always the latest versions, you don’t have to wait 2 years to get major upgrades as with redhat or debian.
And archlinux has a much better security track record than debian.

I personally switched from mint back to debian 8 and I’m considering now archlinux on my mac air. OS X starts sucking big time since yosemite. 
Switching back to mDSNresponder in el capitan did’t help much with wifi problems, but you need a patched kernel driver for the crazy broadcom 
chip on the macbook.

on a public server I would never use ubuntu or mint.


Reini Urban
rurban at cpan.org



> On Jan 7, 2016, at 11:57 PM, Mark Allen via Houston <houston at pm.org> wrote:
> 
> I am way WAY too impatient/ignorant to compile an entire Linux from source these days. I'll take whatever the distro vendor gives me (except for Perl :)) I do know I pretty much can't stand KDE but beyond that... no idea.
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 4:22 PM, Steven Lembark via Houston <houston at pm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:31:48 -0600
> David Ibarra via Houston <houston at pm.org> wrote:
> 
> > I would say Fedora, it's what I use, and matured in the past 2 years or so.
> > You can do in place system upgrades, and seems a lot more work has been put
> > into stability than in the past.
> 
> If you aren't buying commercial support I'd suggest checking out 
> whatever support forums you think you'd use with each distro 
> [including buying whomever you'd panhandle support from a beer] and
> see what they look like. If one of the support forums [or local
> user groups] seems preferable then use whatever they support.
> 
> The "main" distros today include SuSE, RH, Debian, and all of their
> progeny.
> 
> The real difference in all of these is the package mangler, initial
> desktop setups, and whether you can escape from whatever desktop
> settings they've chosen for you. After that it's still linux running
> largely GNU[ish] software: if you're willing fondle what's under the
> hood you can do anything with any of these. 
> 
> 
> Depending on your tolerance for learning how to actually manage a 
> working linux system, Arch Linux has a nice package manager, uses
> pre-compiled content, and avoids much of the cruft found on RH or 
> Debian [and derivatives]. Catch is that you have to care enough to 
> determine what to install. 
> 
> 
> I personally use Gentoo for both servers and desktop: the package 
> mangler is based on BSD's ports system, compiles from source, and 
> avoids most library-version-from-hell tangles. It also allows you
> to select openrc if you havn't already taken the plunge into hell.
> 
> Good thing/bad thing: On the one hand you get to choose things like 
> the desktop manger, terminal types, and service utilities... on the
> other hand you get to choose things like the desktop manger, terminal
> types, and service utilities. If you specifically don't want to know
> about choosing these things then choosing them becomes annoying :-)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steven Lembark                                            3646 Flora Pl
> Workhorse Computing                                  St Louis, MO 63110
> lembark at wrkhors.com                                      +1 888 359 3508
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Houston mailing list
> Houston at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
> Website: http://houston.pm.org/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Houston mailing list
> Houston at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
> Website: http://houston.pm.org/