I’ve only ever used desktop Linux and don’t have server admin experience (unless you count hosting Minecraft servers on my personal machine lol). Currently using Artix and Void for my desktop computers as I’ve grown fond of runit.

I’m going to get a VPS for some personal projects and am at the point of deciding what distro I want to use. While I imagine that systemd is generally the best for servers due to the far more widespread support (therefore it’s better for the stability needs of a server), I have a somewhat high threat model compared to most people so I was wondering if maybe I should use something like runit instead which is much smaller and less vulnerable. Security needs are also the reason why I’m leaning away from using something like Debian, because how outdated the packages are would likely leave me open to vulnerabilities. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding any of that though.

Other than that I’m not sure what considerations there are to make for my server distro. Maybe a more mainstream distro would be more likely to have the software in its repos that I need to host my various projects. On the other hand, I don’t have any experience with, say, Fedora, and it’d probably be a lot easier for me to stick to something I know.

In terms of what I want to do with the VPS, it’ll be more general-purpose and hosting a few different projects. Currently thinking of hosting a Matrix instance, a Mastodon instance, a NextCloud instance, an SMTP server, and a light website, but I’m sure I’ll want to stick more miscellaneous stuff on there too.

So what distro do you use for your server hosting? What things should I consider when picking a distro?

  • nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
    11·
    2 months ago

    @communism Only difference between a “server” distro and a “desktop” distro are what packages are included, and given that most all distros put all the packages on their repositories you can start with any and tailor to your needs.

  • kuneho@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    I used to use Ubuntu, but nowadays I just go with Debian for servera (as well), but you you said you wish to choose something else, so I can’t give you any meaningful inputs…

    I don’t know how real the outdated packages threat, but I would assume, a server never really wants the bleeding edge software and Debian usually gets the critical security updates and patches.

    But I’m no expert.

    It is true that Bookworm is kinda old now, though.

    • communism@lemmy.mlOP
      0·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I agree I don’t want bleeding edge hence why I won’t be using anything Arch-based (despite the fact that Arch-based systems are the ones I’m most familiar with, I’m typing this on an Artix system rn). But there is definitely a middle ground between bleeding edge and outdated, and I imagine a server should want to be somewhere between the middle and outdated, depending on how they balance stability and security.

      I’m also not categorically opposed to using Debian. Ubuntu was my first Linux distro so I’m at least more familiar with Debian-based distros than most other popular server distros. I was just thinking probably not Debian because of how old its packages are and that I’m fairly concerned with security.

      • nfsm@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        11 months ago

        Debian runs on most cloud servers, it’s pretty secure. The outdated packages refer mostly to apps, which is the reason why Debian is so stable. No frills and boring. Documentation is plenty on the internet and for server space it’s probably the most compatible OS.
        I’m running Debian 11, kernel 6.10 on Odroid. Arch on my desktop.

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    0·
    11 months ago

    I love Debian for servers. Super stable. No surprises. It just works. And millions of other people use it as well in case I need to look something up.

    And even when I’m lazy and don’t update to the latest release oldstable will be supported for years and years.

    • Marcos Dione@en.osm.town
      0·
      11 months ago

      @bjoern_tantau @communism That ‘support for years and years’ means security support. So even if the nominal versions stay stable, security fixes are backported. Security scans that only check versions usually give false positives: they think fixes in newer versions are not present when in fact they are.

      Many others distros do exactly the same. I only chose Debian because the amount of software already packaged in the distro itself is bigger than any other, barring 3rd party repos.

  • SavvyWolf@pawb.socialEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    I switched mine to NixOS a while ago. It’s got a steep learning curve, but it’s really nice having the entire server config exist in a handful of files.

  • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    11 months ago

    Debian!

    I’ve heard good things about Alma Linux.

    Also, Ubuntu’s not that bad. You’d see this a lot in corporate settings.

  • Estebiu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    11 months ago

    I’ve been running arch for like 3 years now. Why arch? Because it just works (and its the only one i have esperience with). Maybe ill try nixos one day.

  • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Always, always, always: Debian. It’s not even a debate. Ubuntu is a mess for using as a server with their snaps bullshit. Leave that trash on the desktop, it’s a mess on a server.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Snaps are meant for server applications

        That’s a frightening statement. I don’t work in secret-squirrel shit, but I do private-squirrel stuff, and snaps are just everything our security guys wake up at night to, screaming. Back when I ran security for a company, the entire idea would have been an insta-fuckno . Please, carefully reconsider the choices that put you in a position where snaps are the best answer.

      • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        I tried them by standing up a snap based docker server and it was a nightmare. Never again.