Personally, I would think that just about any Linux distrobution could be adapted to run open source applications without too much fuss and muss. To that end, a Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu flavor would be easiest to get started on and would provide a baseline installation for testing end-user machines.

As to Enterprise solutions,
I would choose Red Hat Enterprise over SuSE for it's long history of stability and wide support arena for open source applications.

SuSE is Novell based (which means Microsoft owns/owned it - OpenSuSE being the current exception) which can be useful for crossover situations such as Windows to Linux migrations.

Over all,
If this is business related you may want to choose an enterprise solution just for the support and documentation that is usually provided (for RHE or SuSE). Otherwise, I would suggest 'getting dirty' with your favorite distro.

A desktop Linux deployment would work unless you need special assistance from vendors for your open-source application. But as your focus is on testing and valuation of features, I would recommend to get as close to the final solution as possible, to prevent invalidation of your time spent on testing.

As I see it, CentOS 5 is a very good base for such testing, because it is essential binary compatible with RedHat Enterprise server and would behave accordingly.

The CentOS community is very active, and you will find help apart from RedHat, but depending on the complexity of your applications, contacting some support company may well be necessary at some point.

A desktop Linux deployment would work unless you need special assistance from vendors for your open-source application. But as your focus is on testing and valuation of features, I would recommend to get as close to the final solution as possible, to prevent invalidation of your time spent on testing.

As I see it, CentOS 5 is a very good base for such testing, because it is essential binary compatible with RedHat Enterprise server and would behave accordingly.

The CentOS community is very active, and you will find help apart from RedHat, but depending on the complexity of your applications, contacting some support company may well be necessary at some point.

Its really hard to give a good answer to your question as it really depends on what services you want to run on the Linux server.

If youre new to Linux and just want to try some services out, see how things look and work and such i would recommend you try out eBox for example at http://ebox-platform.com

For managing deployment of workstation images i would really recommen you trying out http://www.fogproject.org You will be greatly surprised of just how fast it is at deploying images and how many different hardware it supports out of the box.

I would not recommend SuSE if you havent got a vendor of an application that only supports SLES. I would put my money on RedHat for really critical applications or Ubuntu that has extremely great number of applications easily deployable without any hassle whatsoever.

Myself im pretty distribution agnostic except for SuSE wich i really dont like since it has broken down on me one time to much for comfort. If i want something expensive and feel for some chickenrace ill just buy Windows servers.

The primary differences in many cases between a desktop and server release are modified kernels (for performance) and installation service (daemon) options. Most desktop releases can be modified to perform as servers by simply adding a few programs, however when making the conversion you will then have to decide if you want to deactivate the GUI, modify the kernel or perform other tweaks to make it the equivalent of the server release.

In the end it is be your willingness to learn and tweak your system that decides which kind of a release you would like to use. For newer users I recommend starting with a server release to start working immediately in an optimized state.


The decision to use subscription based deployment should be based upon your companies'/lawyers' preference for additional support and liability. Since the subscription based distributions are for profit projects, I would recommend reviewing all applicable licenses for the software and looking for hidden costs or loopholes that your lawyers may disagree with.

If you are trying to setup a server that has greater compatibility with a Windows based infrastructure, I would recommend looking into SUSE since they are a Microsoft Partner company and are actively working on computability products. In contrast RedHat has been a commercial Linux vendor for quite a while and has a lot of experience supporting their customers, but most of their applications are Linux centered and compatibility with other operating systems may present challenges that you can learn from.

In general with the multitude of potential free and subscription based distributions available you have many options. It is advisable for you to test the options that best fit your needs before making a purchase or a final decision, after all one of the great things about Linux is the ability to choose the apps and distributions that best fit your needs. It may seem daunting to think of testing mutliple Operating Systems, but in the end you are looking for the best tool for the job, and you should not risk taking shortcuts that may cause issues in the future.

The primary differences in many cases between a desktop and server release are modified kernels (for performance) and installation service (daemon) options. Most desktop releases can be modified to perform as servers by simply adding a few programs, however when making the conversion you will then have to decide if you want to deactivate the GUI, modify the kernel or perform other tweaks to make it the equivalent of the server release.

In the end it is be your willingness to learn and tweak your system that decides which kind of a release you would like to use. For newer users I recommend starting with a server release to start working immediately in an optimized state.


The decision to use subscription based deployment should be based upon your companies'/lawyers' preference for additional support and liability. Since the subscription based distributions are for profit projects, I would recommend reviewing all applicable licenses for the software and looking for hidden costs or loopholes that your lawyers may disagree with.

If you are trying to setup a server that has greater compatibility with a Windows based infrastructure, I would recommend looking into SUSE since they are a Microsoft Partner company and are actively working on computability products. In contrast RedHat has been a commercial Linux vendor for quite a while and has a lot of experience supporting their customers, but most of their applications are Linux centered and compatibility with other operating systems may present challenges that you can learn from.

In general with the multitude of potential free and subscription based distributions available you have many options. It is advisable for you to test the options that best fit your needs before making a purchase or a final decision, after all one of the great things about Linux is the ability to choose the apps and distributions that best fit your needs. It may seem daunting to think of testing mutliple Operating Systems, but in the end you are looking for the best tool for the job, and you should not risk taking shortcuts that may cause issues in the future.

[quote name="Allen W. Jones"]
SuSE is Novell based (which means Microsoft owns/owned it - OpenSuSE being the current exception) which can be useful for crossover situations such as Windows to Linux migrations.
[/quote]
I am not aware of Microsoft ever owning Novell. I must have missed it...

Brian, as far as server OS's go, if you are looking into paying for support, Red Hat is really the standard that all other Linux enterprise servers are measured against. CentOS is a free version, with no support, and that would work well to "get your feet wet." It sounds to me like you are relatively new to the world of linux in general, so "Hi!", and welcome to the party.

It sounds like the goal here is to get a Linux system up and running to perform proof of concept demos to an audience of people used to windows.
It also sounds like the poster of the question is somewhat new to Linux.
Bearing these two points in mind I think the best choice is Red Hat (or CentOS, which is almost identical to Red Hat, but free). Server, not desktop.
Red Hat is the best documented and best supported by commercial vendors, comes with all the most commonly needed software and the software versions are generally very stable. It's also very enterprise-friendly and will scale up in terms of support and functionality (RHN and Satellite for example).

I wouldn't say Red Hat is the best distro out there (no distro is) or even my favorite, but it is pretty much the best distro for commercial use where support and 3rd party applications are important, and is definitely as good choice for beginners as well since the default packages are all stable and quite carefully selected (on the downside, they tend to be older than say SuSE's or Ubuntu's, and you don't have as much freedom of choice, but this is usually what the commercial users prefer).

It sounds like the goal here is to get a Linux system up and running to perform proof of concept demos to an audience of people used to windows.
It also sounds like the poster of the question is somewhat new to Linux.
Bearing these two points in mind I think the best choice is Red Hat (or CentOS, which is almost identical to Red Hat, but free). Server, not desktop.
Red Hat is the best documented and best supported by commercial vendors, comes with all the most commonly needed software and the software versions are generally very stable. It's also very enterprise-friendly and will scale up in terms of support and functionality (RHN and Satellite for example).

I wouldn't say Red Hat is the best distro out there (no distro is) or even my favorite, but it is pretty much the best distro for commercial use where support and 3rd party applications are important, and is definitely as good choice for beginners as well since the default packages are all stable and quite carefully selected (on the downside, they tend to be older than say SuSE's or Ubuntu's, and you don't have as much freedom of choice, but this is usually what the commercial users prefer).

First sorry for the spelling I am dislex...

"purchase" I would say that the support is the inportant point/question hear is. Can I support the system my self?

I have installed a number of servers and have only used the payed(purchased) support options once, never again as most of the time the persion on the other end of the phone line know less than me about there product.

The only time I relay regreted not (purchasing support) was setting up a linux server to run as a Primary Domain Conroler for a group Windows Clients using LDAP/SAMBA as looking though the internet (google) there seems to be as meny difent ways to do this as there are sysops and I could not find any one to answer my question. Doing this was not click and work for me.

As for speed once it's installed I would use Gentoo as it can be/Is complyled to run speficley and can be totaly optimized for the systems it runs on. But you have to be happy working in text mode for the instalation.

For me DON'T use SuSE (I did once and it's good but totaly difent nothing seems to be in the place I expected it to be from other distro's I have used)

I'd try Ubuntu Server. It doesn't install the X GUI system by default, and the user community is quite large and responsive. I prefer the Debian package management style over RPM. You can always use the LTS version if you are looking for something that you won't want to upgrade for a while, and you can get pay per incident technical support if you can't find the answer to your problem from their documentation, forums, Google, or IRC.

I'd try Ubuntu Server. It doesn't install the X GUI system by default, and the user community is quite large and responsive. I prefer the Debian package management style over RPM. You can always use the LTS version if you are looking for something that you won't want to upgrade for a while, and you can get pay per incident technical support if you can't find the answer to your problem from their documentation, forums, Google, or IRC.

A Ubuntu 8.04 LTS will be a good choice.

If you like Red Hat way, but cannot afford it, you can always use very similar distro called CentOS.

If you like Red Hat way, but cannot afford it, you can always use very similar distro called CentOS.

Hello Brian

It sounds like you may be trying to present a business case for moving from a particular application of Windows to an equivalent on Linux. The best way to do this depends on the type of application you are using and the Linux skills available.

If you are planning on testing an application that runs on both Linux and Windows with native versions on each (like oracle), You may be better off contacting the vendor and asking what Linux distrobution they suggest or support.

If you are planning on testing the open source equivalents of a particular application, this will depend on the type of application. Whether it is something for the desktop eg: office suite, web browser or desktop publishing software or something for the server, eg: webserver, database or similar application.

In any case, if you will be doing performance comparisons to present to the business it is probably best if you enlist the help of experts to get you set up, maybe a local IT company. For this you should contact both Novell and Red Hat to see who they recommend in your area, and get quotes from both places, as well as ask questions about pricing for ongoing support. This will also be good to see who is nearest if you need support quickly in the future.

If you feel that you have the skills to set up and support the system yourself I would still recommend going with a paid supported distrobution, That way if something goes really wrong you always have that to fall back on and you can demonstrate that the business will still be able to get support for the system if you are no longer the person administering it.

If you are starting with a clean slate so to speak and don't have anyone on hand with specific Linux skills and local support is equally easy (or difficult) to find I would tend to go with Red Hat as they are the most popular business/enterprise Linux system. Also they have a greater commitment to open source in general, where Novell may try to push their proprietary software, like Open Enterprise Server over open source solutions. I believe Red Hat are the biggest contributors of source code to the Linux kernel among any single organisation and the maintainer of the version 2.4 branch of the kernel is maintained by a Red Hat employee (with 2.6 being maintained by Linus).

I hope this helps
James Alcock

[quote name="mfillpot"]The primary differences in many cases between a desktop and server release are modified kernels (for performance) and installation service (daemon) options. Most desktop releases can be modified to perform as servers by simply adding a few programs, however when making the conversion you will then have to decide if you want to deactivate the GUI, modify the kernel or perform other tweaks to make it the equivalent of the server release.

I would add that a lote of desktop/lapto distros (Unbuntu) default to using a network manager witch is fine for a deskto but for a server can be a problem.

Steve

[quote name="mfillpot"]The primary differences in many cases between a desktop and server release are modified kernels (for performance) and installation service (daemon) options. Most desktop releases can be modified to perform as servers by simply adding a few programs, however when making the conversion you will then have to decide if you want to deactivate the GUI, modify the kernel or perform other tweaks to make it the equivalent of the server release.

I would add that a lote of desktop/lapto distros (Unbuntu) default to using a network manager witch is fine for a deskto but for a server can be a problem.

Steve

RedHat Enterprise over SuSE Enterprise
if you need a solution for free, use
Debian or CentOS

my recommendations are based on maturity of the mentioned distros and user base ( professional and or community - support)

My experience is that subscription-based servers (Red Hat or SUSE) only make sense if you plan to have the machine in production for a long time: free distribution don't last long, i.e. if you want to keep getting updates you have to upgrade the whole distribution after 12-18 months, while the corresponding Server Editions last for a few years.
The drawback for increased stability is that Server Editions are always somewhat behind when it comes to the latest releases of the packages.
If this plays a role for you (and you don't care for a day downtime every year for upgrading the distro and migrating your data), I think you should go for a free distribution.
Ah, yes: you will also save money :-)

Once you made that choice, I suggest you to go for the one you know better. It has always paid off for me.
Every major distro is (relatively) easy to twist and hack until it looks exactly like any other. If you have experience with one, I suggest to start working on that one, rather than starting from scratch on something you don't know well just because it's theoretically closest to your target. Just my personal advice.

My experience is that subscription-based servers (Red Hat or SUSE) only make sense if you plan to have the machine in production for a long time: free distribution don't last long, i.e. if you want to keep getting updates you have to upgrade the whole distribution after 12-18 months, while the corresponding Server Editions last for a few years.
The drawback for increased stability is that Server Editions are always somewhat behind when it comes to the latest releases of the packages.
If this plays a role for you (and you don't care for a day downtime every year for upgrading the distro and migrating your data), I think you should go for a free distribution.
Ah, yes: you will also save money :-)

Once you made that choice, I suggest you to go for the one you know better. It has always paid off for me.
Every major distro is (relatively) easy to twist and hack until it looks exactly like any other. If you have experience with one, I suggest to start working on that one, rather than starting from scratch on something you don't know well just because it's theoretically closest to your target. Just my personal advice.

- For a enterprise network, for multiple remote servers, RHEL is the way to go … it is reliable, provides easy updates and scales well … if you want only the latest and greatest software and hardware support, then Fedora or Ubuntu are for you….
- The key to Gnu/Linux is to STICK WITH A DISTRO … and learn it, learn it, learn it … you can’t jump around except in the RHEL-Fedora-CentOS arena since they are all based on the same source … another reason to take RedHat over others because you can run RHEL in production, then CentOS in development and Fedora on personal PCs…

redhat server.

redhat server.

Personally since this is a proof of concept I would go ahead and keep the plan and expenses simple and low and push the server level distribution. You could in theory use a desktop version...but the real question is why would you want to? The business has asked you to support two offices to test and prove up open source applications. It is to your advantage to set up a server model that utilizes Linux robustness.

I would push with Red Hat for several reasons.
1. Red Hat has been designed from the beginning to be set up for corporate IT type infrastructure. The majority of companies that write code for open source projects, or have ported their applications to Linux specifically support Red Hat. You will get better support from their tech departments should you run into issues.

2. Novell SLES is a pain. I'm not quite sure what Novell is doing to SUSE since they purchased it other than wander around in the weeds with it. We currently use it at the company I work at and getting support from third-party applications, specific open source configurations and such has been difficult at best. I tend to have to develop work arounds for that distro much more often than I like to, or have time to.

3. There are massive amounts of information, HOWTOs, FAQ, forums etc about Red Hat deployments, configs and operation. You will have ample resources for configuration and troubleshooting.

4. CentOS is the free version of Red Hat and is a good sandbox if you need to have one box that is not subscription to play with.

5. Red Hat has the support infrastructure. Tell the sale guy and sales engineer what you are trying to do and they will work with you on prices. They will sense the opportunity and will cut you a good value. Then you have the backing of a vendor if you run into a problem or issue. This will look good and please the higher ups.

Just two cents. Best of Luck!
Cheers -

I'm going to step off the "nobody got fired for using Red Hat" answer and say SLES. Why? I run hundreds of Linux hosts... including everything from Red Hat 2.1 (and some earlier) to Red Hat 5.3 (soon 5.4) and everything from SLES 8 forward. We use 32bit, 64bit, and zSeries. We are a large scale enterprise ISV.

We run Solaris 2.6+, HPUX 10+, AIX 4.x+, Tandem, VMS, OS400 and many others as well.

We prefer SLES because it integrates better. They did a better job of styling their services to work across machines. Sure... you CAN tweak a Red Hat box to work.... and of course, we do. But I do not have to do that many tweaks with SLES and it just seems more thought out than Red Hat with regards to playing with other OS's.

Our infrastructure NAS, DNS/DHCP, authentication, file and print shares are SLES based. Folks... they NEVER go down (never). I cannot say the same about our Red Hat boxes... we are abusive to our Linux platforms though... doing some pretty sophisticated stress and performance tests. IMHO, I wouldn't trust a Red Hat box that wasn't running at least RHEL 5.3.... and until today, that was the LATEST offering from Red Hat.

With that said, certainly, if you don't go open source, you'll find more commercial offerings out there for Red Hat. So, if that's an issue... choose Red Hat. You CAN make it work... but sometimes, you'll pull your hair out on the integration side because you'll have to override some fundamental assumptions that Red Hat made (that are just wrong... unless everything is a Red Hat box).

So... shoot me, hang me... whatever. I vote SLES. It's robust, VERY stable and integrates well with a very mixed set of machines. It's not perfect... I do have to make some tweaks sometimes... I just don't say "argghhh!!" nearly as much with the SLES boxes as I do with the Red Hat ones.

With regards to using a community based distro instead.... here are some issues:

1. Community based variants are AHEAD of their enterprise counterparts. So testing with openSUSE or Fedora and then moving to SLES or RHEL could be a disaster.

2. If you are deploying infrastructure, you want longer term support. Sure, you could try CentOS if you believe that's the right model for support. I know there's a "desire" to something similar in SLES land (but it's vapor currently). The enterprise distros are FREE, you just don't get support... so you CAN try them out. That's what I would do.

Finally,

SLES is traditionally half the price of Red Hat for equivalent enterprise level subscriptions. Something also to keep in mind.

Also SLES dominates zSeries (you may not have a mainframe). There's a long and interesting history behind that... good story.

Novell may not be nearly as interested as Red Hat in funding open source developers... they have lost a lot of their talent to various people including Red Hat over the years.

Red Hat dominates the modifications made the kernel and GREATLY influences direction... and in all fairness, they are usually right (to their credit).

So I DO like both... but given a choice, I'd choose SLES in most cases.

I'm going to step off the "nobody got fired for using Red Hat" answer and say SLES. Why? I run hundreds of Linux hosts... including everything from Red Hat 2.1 (and some earlier) to Red Hat 5.3 (soon 5.4) and everything from SLES 8 forward. We use 32bit, 64bit, and zSeries. We are a large scale enterprise ISV.

We run Solaris 2.6+, HPUX 10+, AIX 4.x+, Tandem, VMS, OS400 and many others as well.

We prefer SLES because it integrates better. They did a better job of styling their services to work across machines. Sure... you CAN tweak a Red Hat box to work.... and of course, we do. But I do not have to do that many tweaks with SLES and it just seems more thought out than Red Hat with regards to playing with other OS's.

Our infrastructure NAS, DNS/DHCP, authentication, file and print shares are SLES based. Folks... they NEVER go down (never). I cannot say the same about our Red Hat boxes... we are abusive to our Linux platforms though... doing some pretty sophisticated stress and performance tests. IMHO, I wouldn't trust a Red Hat box that wasn't running at least RHEL 5.3.... and until today, that was the LATEST offering from Red Hat.

With that said, certainly, if you don't go open source, you'll find more commercial offerings out there for Red Hat. So, if that's an issue... choose Red Hat. You CAN make it work... but sometimes, you'll pull your hair out on the integration side because you'll have to override some fundamental assumptions that Red Hat made (that are just wrong... unless everything is a Red Hat box).

So... shoot me, hang me... whatever. I vote SLES. It's robust, VERY stable and integrates well with a very mixed set of machines. It's not perfect... I do have to make some tweaks sometimes... I just don't say "argghhh!!" nearly as much with the SLES boxes as I do with the Red Hat ones.

With regards to using a community based distro instead.... here are some issues:

1. Community based variants are AHEAD of their enterprise counterparts. So testing with openSUSE or Fedora and then moving to SLES or RHEL could be a disaster.

2. If you are deploying infrastructure, you want longer term support. Sure, you could try CentOS if you believe that's the right model for support. I know there's a "desire" to something similar in SLES land (but it's vapor currently). The enterprise distros are FREE, you just don't get support... so you CAN try them out. That's what I would do.

Finally,

SLES is traditionally half the price of Red Hat for equivalent enterprise level subscriptions. Something also to keep in mind.

Also SLES dominates zSeries (you may not have a mainframe). There's a long and interesting history behind that... good story.

Novell may not be nearly as interested as Red Hat in funding open source developers... they have lost a lot of their talent to various people including Red Hat over the years.

Red Hat dominates the modifications made the kernel and GREATLY influences direction... and in all fairness, they are usually right (to their credit).

So I DO like both... but given a choice, I'd choose SLES in most cases.

Payed subscription makes sense if you'd like to provide a stable service for a long time, if you'd like to provide a small installation base for serious testing and some internal development you don't need a subscription plan, just go with "an old and stable" distribution, something you can find today and tomorrow as well.
Well known names (SUSE, RedHat/Fedora, Oracle, Debian, Ubuntu) were here years ago, have a solid installation base today and hopefully they'll be here tomorrow (we hope so).
So go for a mainstream distro today, study and improve it to see what happens, if you're happy with it take a subscription plan only if you need it

Hope it helps
Ben

There have already been several well thought out and lengthy answers to this question in this thread but I thought I would throw out my opinion.

RHEL

For several reasons, most of which have already been covered here.

Something I recommend to people still in the buying stages is to start by building on CentOS. It won't cost you a dime, and when your ready to come out of the test stages you'll have admins with the skills you need to jump straight to RHEL with a paid support subscription, or just stick with Cent if that's your prerogative.

mm~

There have already been several well thought out and lengthy answers to this question in this thread but I thought I would throw out my opinion.

RHEL

For several reasons, most of which have already been covered here.

Something I recommend to people still in the buying stages is to start by building on CentOS. It won't cost you a dime, and when your ready to come out of the test stages you'll have admins with the skills you need to jump straight to RHEL with a paid support subscription, or just stick with Cent if that's your prerogative.

mm~