Is SUSE best Choice for SERVER

English Applications
#1

Hi there all,

I have to mount a server application, so Im on the process to chose the best, more reliable, etc. OS, for the matter.

i was researching that on the linux world the Ubuntu might be the one.

I familiarizared with the Suse enviroment, so that is why im asking if the suse 11 is server material. Does it has the apache server, the mysql… etc.

Also, i know that when linux no bother if it is a pc, also an old one, but what about an old pc, covnerted to a server with linux, i know that there are the installation requirements but, maybe an opinion?

Or maybe some that has installed, configured same dutie as mine?

#2

I run SUSE servers both at home and at work profesionally. SUSE is a very decent server platform, much better than Ubuntu, IMHO

Other decent server platforms; Fedora/RHEL, Debian, *BSD

Yes, it has all the server tools you’d ever need, they are just a few clicks away in the package manager :wink: and once you install them, you can remove all the DE related stuff if you have it installed. Or just do a fresh minimal install without DE and include the server stuff

#3

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 21:36 +0000, joanmiramontes wrote:
> Hi there all,
>
> I have to mount a server application, so Im on the process to chose the
> best, more reliable, etc. OS, for the matter.
>
> i was researching that on the linux world the Ubuntu might be the one.

Ubuntu? Server? No. Definitely not.
While the Ubuntu folks are trying to make server distros now, their
model has been inherently desktop focused and it shows. I would imagine
a lot of problems with an Ubuntu server.

>
> I familiarizared with the Suse enviroment, so that is why im asking if
> the suse 11 is server material. Does it has the apache server, the
> mysql… etc.

You can make openSUSE fill the server role quite easily. But, how long
does your server need to last? If you want your server to last many
years, you need to use SLES instead of openSUSE. Otherwise, you WILL
have to take some outages for upgrading periodically.

So… openSUSE is vastly better than Ubuntu on the server side, and SLES
is a much more stable choice over openSUSE for support and longevity.

>
> Also, i know that when linux no bother if it is a pc, also an old one,
> but what about an old pc, covnerted to a server with linux, i know that
> there are the installation requirements but, maybe an opinion?
>
> Or maybe some that has installed, configured same dutie as mine?

I have used openSUSE and the older SUSE Professional in server roles in
the past (for a network of about 300 hosts or so). But support is an
issue. We switched almost everything over to SLES now… there are a
few things still left.

#4

Cjcox,
"You can make openSUSE fill the server role quite easily. But, how long
does your server need to last? If you want your server to last many
years, you need to use SLES instead of openSUSE. Otherwise, you WILL
have to take some outages for upgrading periodically.

So… openSUSE is vastly better than Ubuntu on the server side, and SLES
is a much more stable choice over openSUSE for support and longevity."

Do you mean the SUSE Linux Enterprise Server

I did look that, but it seems that it has a cost. does it?
( Linux Server: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server By Novell )

And for the ubuntu thing,
this is the one that i was thinkin of
ubuntu-9.04-server-i386
so you absolutely recomend SUse instead that one, and the SLES, over Suse.

#5

thnks for the advice!
Im Trying to setup a Open source application for Elecrtonic Medical Records. called open emr.
And i have like newbbie experience on servers, however i had worked with iis and apache, nothing serious…, but i felt kind of newbbie,

#6

Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this unscientific opinion. You would imagine, you say. That means you don’t really have any experience.

In fact Ubuntu does come in server editions which install without a GUI environment. I have installed and maintained Ubuntu servers and they run just fine. Considering the Debian lineage of the Ubuntu packages, that’s no surprise.

In fact Ubuntu LTS servers are shaping up as a third platform that are supported by enterprise software, in addition to RHEL and SLES, due to the Long Term Support editions.

The fact is, pretty much any Linux distro can be used a server and server software on Linux is very solid due to the care with which the developers work. The differences between various distros when used as a server are mainly in the quality of the update mechanisms, the ease of installation, any helpful tools for administration, the length of support, the Enterprise support (important if you need a support organisation to rely on), the certification with third-party software (e.g. Oracle, etc).

I’m sure that there are some server admins out there that swear by Slackware because they know exactly what to do with it. A good admin can get pretty much any distro to work as a server.

It is in fact in desktops that Linux distro quality is more uneven due to the rapid pace of development in this arena.

#7

Ken_Yap

so you really recomend Ubuntu over SUSE?

hopefully i got the right version?
ubuntu-9.04-server-i386

#8

I already gave you some factors to consider when choosing a server distro in my posting. You should read and understand them instead of trying to reduce a complex issue to a simple conclusion.

But if you are going to be maintaining the server for many years, you should consider Enterprise editions, i.e. RHEL, SLES, or Ubuntu LTS (8.04 was a LTS). Or Debian which maintains old versions for many many years.

If you are just doing this to learn, then suit yourself. openSUSE’s LAMP stack is pretty easy to set up.

#9

Ok tnks

No need to hesitate… i just need a prefer this to this answer…

i think ubuntu is more reliable comparing the arquitecture of the presentation of the OS, ie the ubuntu HAs its ow Server version, thing that on SUse page didnt see, yes is the enterprise solition but i think im not in that phase, since im gonna start this business

Hope some other people could comment and feedback the thread

tnks guys.

#10

I will add this: what you know about configuring and administering Linux is more important than the exact server distro. Basically it’s all Linux underneath.

#11

I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Both Ubuntu and SUSE (and other distros for that matter) are or can be made very reliable and as ken_yap already said, all Linux distros can be used as servers without too much problems provided that you know your way around them and how to do things. And again, as already mentioned, if you need longevity you should choose a solution that has a long support life, like SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server), RHEL, CentOS (which is basically RHEL but without the cost subscription and yes you’ll get updates for it), Ubuntu Server/LTS, etc

#12

I do not personally run any servers, but people who do generally run SUSE, Fedora/RHEL, Debian, or a *BSD. My good friend has run his online bussiness and webpages from a Suse 9 server.

#13

On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 00:56 +0000, ken yap wrote:
> cjcox;2012483 Wrote:
> > Ubuntu? Server? No. Definitely not.
> > While the Ubuntu folks are trying to make server distros now, their
> > model has been inherently desktop focused and it shows. I would
> > imagine
> > a lot of problems with an Ubuntu server.
>
> Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this unscientific opinion. You
> would imagine, you say. That means you don’t really have any
> experience.

Sigh… so you’re going to tell everyone a LIE about me. Great.

Ok Sherlock, what happens when you install a package on Ubuntu server?
Does it automatically start using some kind of default config, or does
it allow you to configure it before starting something potentially
unsafe and insesure.

Nuff said.

Plonk to you… if you’re recommending it… fine. I think it’s a BIG
mistake. And yes, I have the experience…

Done.

#14

The other thing about Ubuntu vs. Suse (or redhat) in the server space is that I would trust Novell or Redhat support on server issues, Canonical isn’t in that same space. One does not get fired for buying from Novell, Redhat, IBM, or Mircosoft. If your Cononical server screws up, your head is going to be on the plate. in five years, perhaps not, and even ignoring some issues with Ubuntu, if I was desprate for a Ubuntu style linux, Debian would be the way I would go, but I would rather have SUSE, Redhat, or a *BSD. Don’t get me wrong, Ubuntu is a very nice, Very popular desktop, as that is the space they focus on. Redhat focuses in on the server space, and SUSE has the server space and the best KDE desktop (Best KDE is of course my opinon, and nothing more) :slight_smile:

#15

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:50:06 GMT, cjcox wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 00:56 +0000, ken yap wrote:
>> cjcox;2012483 Wrote:
>>> Ubuntu? Server? No. Definitely not.
>>> While the Ubuntu folks are trying to make server distros now, their
>>> model has been inherently desktop focused and it shows. I would
>>> imagine
>>> a lot of problems with an Ubuntu server.
>>
>> Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this unscientific opinion. You
>> would imagine, you say. That means you don’t really have any
>> experience.
>
> Sigh… so you’re going to tell everyone a LIE about me. Great.
>
> Ok Sherlock, what happens when you install a package on Ubuntu server?
> Does it automatically start using some kind of default config, or does
> it allow you to configure it before starting something potentially
> unsafe and insesure.
>
> Nuff said.
>
> Plonk to you… if you’re recommending it… fine. I think it’s a BIG
> mistake. And yes, I have the experience…
>
> Done.

Let’s keep this civil folks.

#16

Have you actually tried it? It asks you questions to configure the service. Using ncurses screens, as the server CD is a CLI install. Do not confuse the server CD with the desktop CD. Very much the same as Debian. If the sysadmin can’t deal with that, use something else.

And no, I don’t blanket recommend one server distro over another. You will see a list of issues on a later posting.

And remember, it was you who wrote “I would imagine…”. Who am I to doubt your word? :stuck_out_tongue:

#17

Hah, a good sysadmin is sometimes better than vendor support.

For instance, even RHEL has issues sometimes. lighttpd in RHEL 5.3 wouldn’t let me configure any CGI scripts no matter what I did with chcon (selinux util) on the scripts. Essentially it was a faulty selinux spec for lighttpd. In a situation like that, you roll your own instead of waiting for a vendor fix.

Depending on the size of the organisation, you might be able to negotiate deep discounts for enterprise support. Or it may turn out cheaper to spend the money on a few good people who know their way around Debian, or CentOS or whatever you have chosen. I’ve even seen a place that wanted Gentoo people because they wanted to optimise the heck out of their game servers.

#18

On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 15:50 +0000, cjcox wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 00:56 +0000, ken yap wrote:
> > cjcox;2012483 Wrote:
> > > Ubuntu? Server? No. Definitely not.
> > > While the Ubuntu folks are trying to make server distros now, their
> > > model has been inherently desktop focused and it shows. I would
> > > imagine
> > > a lot of problems with an Ubuntu server.
> >
> > Sorry, I can’t let you get away with this unscientific opinion. You
> > would imagine, you say. That means you don’t really have any
> > experience.
>
> Sigh… so you’re going to tell everyone a LIE about me. Great.
>
> Ok Sherlock, what happens when you install a package on Ubuntu server?
> Does it automatically start using some kind of default config, or does
> it allow you to configure it before starting something potentially
> unsafe and insesure.
>
> Nuff said.
>
> Plonk to you… if you’re recommending it… fine. I think it’s a BIG
> mistake. And yes, I have the experience…
>
> Done.

After calming down a bit… I don’t like people on the attack…

Ken does have a point in that any “Linux” distro can be made to work.
My point is that openSUSE/SLES have thought some things through a bit
and provide a better starting point with regards to how things are
handled and integration with their administration tools. Does openSUSE
get thing wrong? Yes. And sometimes they’re actually moving away from
models that are “right” towards models that are “wrong”… go figure.
Peer pressure has a lot to with that.

Shoot, I can’t stand the stupidity of Ubuntu on a desktop… so I guess
that makes me a freak and not politically correct… that’s fine.

Since I don’t have to time to do a complete research paper for someone
what wouldn’t read it anyhow, I will just say, try them out and make up
your own mind.

Ubuntu may work fine for you. But IMHO, Ubuntu only does the mundane
well… and even then, they get that wrong a lot. A lot of my friends
run Ubuntu. And when the get stuck (which happens whenever they step
outside of the box a bit), I try to help them get their systems going
again. I find it frustrating just because of Ubuntu’s over hyped
reputation. It’s not deserved. Though they do have a great community.

Our experiments with Ubuntu, the consumer side, LTS and Server side,
have not gone well. Again, it’s all fixable… but at that point, as
Ken noted, doesn’t matter which distro you choose if you have to do
everything manually. I just don’t have the time…

I work for an enterprise sw company. Our product supports SLES and RHEL
(x86 and zSeries). We look at Ubuntu from time to time to evaluate its
readiness for enterprise deployment. Canonical is trying really hard to
figure out how to handle the enterprise, I figure it may just be a
matter of time before we have to add Ubuntu into our full time mix. But
our infrastructure itself runs on SUSE today… and I don’t see that
changing. With regards to paying for support, SLES has reasonable
annual and three year packages (and more). What do you get? Lots of
patches :slight_smile: Patches for things that an average consumer would likely
never see/use (e.g. SAN, 10Gbit, clustering, etc.).

But do try Ubuntu out, if you’re leaning that direction. If it handles
everything you want… great. If not, see if SUSE doesn’t do things
better.

#19

This I agree with you. IMO SUSE has always had the best integration of configuration among the distros I have used. But it has gone a little south since Novell took over. I hate to stereotype, but I do think there is a grain of truth in the popular image of “solid German engineering”. I look at the SUSE config scripts and I see that the authors have considered many situations that never even occurred to me.

On the other hand, user friendly config UIs can only handle so many situations, though their range is expanding. I try very hard to configure within what YaST will support. I edit /etc/sysconfig/postfix instead of /etc/postfix/main.cf because I want my config to port to the next release. But it’s a losing battle for others. I couldn’t do what I want with DHCPD without creating a dhcpd.conf.local and adding an include. Not to mention anything more than simple setup is beyond YaST’s DNS setup.

And when you have to do these things by hand anyway, you probably will have some kind of configuration distribution system or kickstart to build new machines. That’s when you need a good sysadmin. Of course your vendor will be happy to help. For $$$$$.

#20

Sure, if you have a Linix wizard, you could build your own company distro and use it as a server. Many locations have the budget for Zero or one IT, (A computer gaming company would have tons, a company selling survey equipment might have one or zero) My brother is a computer programmer by trade, and knows the in and outs of Slackware, and I am sure he could make a very secure server, and most likely do a better job then I could even with the latest SUSE or Redhat.

However, given a standard IT person with no deep unix wizard like experince with one flavor of Linux, getting one of the server based distos will be the smart thing to do. even better would be one that is backed by a respected company by management who may not be the most tech savvy people.