Did You Know?
Got a tip? Let us know

LFCS - Linux Foundation Certified SysAdmin - Exam Preparation Guide

RedHat vs Debian : Administrative Point of View

Download Your Free eBooks NOW - 10 Free Linux eBooks for Administrators

There are hundreds of Linux distributions available, for free (in the other sense). Every Linux Enthusiast has a special taste for certain distribution, at some point of time. The taste for specific distribution largely depends upon the intended area of application. Some the famous Linux distributions and its area of application are listed below.

RedHat vs Debian

RedHat vs Debian: Administrative Point of View

  1. Fedora: Cutting Edge Technology Implementation
  2. RedHat and Debian Server
  3. Ubuntu: one of the Introductory distro for Newbies
  4. Kali and Backtrack: Penetration Testing, etc.

Well this article aims to compare RedHat (Fedora, CentOS) and Debian (Ubuntu) from an administrator point of view. RedHat is a commercial Linux Distribution, which is most widely used on a number of servers, across the world. Fedora is the testing laboratory of RedHat which is well known for its bleeding edge technology implementation, which is released every six month.

Here the question is when there are hundreds of Linux distribution available for free (in either sense, open-source and economic), why would someone invest hundreds of bucks in buying a Linux Distribution, making RedHat so much successful. Well the answer is RedHat is very much stable.

The life cycle is of about ten years and after all there is someone to be blamed if something doesn’t work, the corporate culture. CentOS is another distribution which is RedHat minus Non-Free packages. CentOs is a stable distribution hence latest version of all packages is pushed into its RPM after testing, the focus remains on stability of distribution.

Debian on the other hand is a Linux distribution which is very much stable and contains very large number of packages into its repository. Any other distribution that comes close to Debian at this point is Gentoo. On my Debian server (Squeeze), which is a bit outdated.

root@localhost:/home/avi# apt-cache stats 

Total package names: 37544 (751 k) 
Total package structures: 37544 (1,802 k)

You see packages more than 37.5K! Everything you need is present in the repository itself. The package manager Apt is too smart to resolve all the dependency problem itself. Very rarely a Debian user requires to download and install dependency manually. Debian is built with a number of package manager which makes package management a cake walk.

Ubuntu which is a Linux distribution for newbies. A newbie Linux Enthusiast is suggested to start with Ubuntu in most of the Linux forum. Ubuntu maintains a simple and user-friendly interface, which gives a feeling of Windows like OS to a new user.

Debian is the base of Ubuntu, but their repository varies. Ubuntu contains newer updated packages and is still stable. In-fact Ubuntu is highly appreciated by newbies as well as advanced users.

Taking the above description into the next stage by presenting them in a point-wise fashion for better understanding and reference, here we go.

1. RedHat is Most Widely used Distribution for servers.
Debian is widely used Distribution next to RedHat.

2. RedHat is Commercial Linux Distribution.
Debian is Non-commercial Linux Distribution.

3. RedHat contains roughly 3000 packages.
Latest Debian Release (Wheezy) contains well over 38000 packages.

It means Debian contains nearly 80% more packages than RedHat and this is the reason Debian contains packages like openoffice, Transmission bittorrent client, mp3 codecs, etc which a RedHat like distribution lacks and is required to be installed manually or from 3rd party repository.

4. RedHat bug fixing takes considerable time, since it is controlled by a small group of people-RedHat Employee.
Bug fixing in Debian is very much quick as people all around the globe from Debian community, working from different geographical location simultaneously fixes it.

5. RedHat don’t release package updates, till next release, means you have to wait for the next release be it minor.
Debian community believes – software is a continuous evolution process, hence updates are released on Daily Basis.

6. RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.
Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away.

7. RedHat is rock solid stable distribution released after continuous testing.
Debian contains packages from stable, unstable and testing Repository. Stable contains rock solid stable release packages. Unstable contains more updated packages ready to be pushed into stable repository. Testing contains packages already tested and marked safe.

8. RedHat package manager Yum is less mature and is not able to solve dependencies automatically, many a times.
Debian package manager Apt is very mature and solve dependency automatically, most of the times.

9. Installing VLC in RedHat Beta Release 6.1, is a very difficult task which requires installing tens of packages manually.
In Debian it is as simple as apt-get install vlc*

10. Debian is intelligent in differentiating Configuration files with other files. This makes upgradation easy. The virgin (untouched) configuration files are updated automatically and the one modified, requires users interaction as the package manager ask what to do, but this is not the case with RedHat.

11. RedHat uses the rpm packages.
Debian uses the deb packages.

12. RedHat uses the RPM package manager.
Debian uses the dpkg package manager.

13. RedHat uses the yum dependency resolver.
Debian uses the apt-get dependency resolver.

14. Fedora uses single global repository which contains free software’s only.
Debian contains contribute and Non-free repository along with free software repository.

15. According to Wikipedia, Ubuntu is a based on the unstable branch of Debian but Fedora is not a derivative and has a more direct relationship and stays close to many upstream projects.

16. Fedora uses ‘su‘ whereas Ubuntu uses ‘sudo‘ by default.

17. Fedora ships with SELinux installed and enabled by default along with some other ‘hardening’ software to make things more secure by default, unlike Debian.

18. Debian is a community based distribution, unlike RedHat.

19. Security is one of the most important issue for both RedHat and Debian.

20. Fedora, CentOs, Oracle Linux are among those distribution developed around RedHat Linux and is a variant of RedHat Linux.
Ubuntu, Kali, etc are few of the variant of Debian. Debian truly is a mother distribution of a number of Linux Distro.

21. Installation, of RedHat is little easy to install as compared to Debian. Internet Connection during RedHat installation is option. Internet connection during Debian Installation is optional but recommended. Moreover till squeeze, one needs to acquire WEP key, to use wifi network (installation). WEP Is not used these days and this is painful during installation of Debian, before wheezy. Wheezy supports both WEP ans WPA.

My Prespective

I have used RedHat Enterprise Linux (Beta), Fedora, Centos, Debian and Ubuntu for years. Being a Linux professional Fedora’s unstability didn’t suit me. CentOs was a good option but resolving dependency manually and reinstalling everything after upgrade was a bad idea form me and my team’s point of view.

RedHat was very stable but afterall my company didn’t like the idea of spending thousands of bucks for RedHat Enterprise Edition and getting outdated software.

Ubuntu seems too much childish to me to be used in servers of the Organization handling critical data.

One of my colleague suggested me with slack, Mint, etc but after all how many server runs on slack and Mint in the world? Debian my favorite distribution suited my organization very well. Now most of my server are running Debian and I didn’t repent this, Indeed Implementing Debian at my workplace was a very cool idea.

You may disagree with my point of view but you can’t escape the truth, as stated above. This article aims to throw light on the fact and not controversy. Every distribution has it’s pros and cons. All the Linux distribution available today are surviving because they have a supportive community and user group, which we respect.

That’s all for now. We tried to provide you with the relevant information, in a nice format. Don’t forget to provide us with your valuable comments and suggestion, which is highly appreciated. I will soon be coming up with another Interesting article. Till then stay tuned and connected to TecMint.com for latest news on FOSS and Linux.

I am a major in computer science, love to research nix. I love to write codes and scripts, review distros, experiment Foss Technologies, write technical articles, Hack, of course Ethically. I am working as System Administrator (nix) for a NGO.

Linux Services & Free WordPress Setup

Our post is simply ‘DIY’ aka ‘Do It Yourself, still you may find difficulties and want us to help you out. We offer wide range of Linux and Web Hosting Solutions at fair minimum rates. Please submit your orders by Clicking Here.

80 Responses

  1. Hi,
    I’m not totally agree with you. I’m using CentOs & RedHat In corporate buisness, and it’s very important to be sure to get some support if needed. Therefore, the difference, really important is the stability about update in the time.
    Exemple : if you got some projects needed 10 or 20 years alive, you need to be sure about your distrubution’s lifetime, and actually, no one could say if debian never die tommorow … But it’s really more stability about buisness model about redhat , so his lifetime …
    Therefore, you say yum dont resolve dependencies really good => NO, since 5.x, it works very well !
    Now i’m agree with you about choice between centOs and Redhat. CentOs it’s just a fork since RedHat without non free package (really not so much, and usefull), so it’s really the best choice rightnow in corporate making !

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      @ charbonnier nicolas, i respect your view. But i don’t find any reason to explain everything again.

      See Apt is not very speedy but much faster than Yum.
      Upgradation of Debian is a very easy process as compared to RHEL.
      No doubt RHEL is much stable and hence most widely used in corporate (as mentioned in article) but Debian either is not far behind. And Yeah RHEL stability cost Newer Packages but not the Debian. Debian is the mother of more than half of the Linux distros of today, if Debian dies tomorrow, Linux would die somewhere.

      Apt is Much older than Yum. An average of 50% of Linux distro of today use Apt. Number of Third Party Apt packages along with the one provided with community is several times more than Yum.

      Apt is much advanced and matured than yum and the matter of support is barely a issue of thought.

      :) after all Distro Selection remained a point of discussion of decades. And it was all my thought based on facts, you may disagree.

      ——————————-
      Note: I personally have used RHEL and CentOs for Years before i got the best distro perfectly suited to me. Debian!

      • Kruunch says:

        I agree with this. RedHat/CentOS is excellent for stable computing. But if your organization does active development, Debian (and Ubuntu) will save you a lot of money in man hours resolving dependency conflicts (vs. the small amount of man hours locking down a Debian box).

        Both have support options if that’s a concern.

        If you’re in a space that uses a lot of enterprise level software, RedHat might be the only choice (and certainly smartest) but for the other 90%+ of the computing world that shouldn’t be an issue. If you do heavy virtualization yourself, RHEL/CentOS might also be the smarter choice as it seems to have more support built-in for infrastructure. However in a cloud space where someone else is doing your virtualization this isn’t an issue.

        From a development standpoint, I prefer Ubuntu over Debian because of the more updated packages. I prefer Debian over RHEL for the same reason (and aptitude is so much better than yum).

    • inChargeOfIT says:

      I have been using Debian and Ubuntu (~100 servers) for 10+ years and have yet to find a problem that would require a support ticket (at least something I could not figure out with a little googling): mysql (maria-db) clusters, varnish caches, rails|php app servers, build servers, huge perforce repository, etc.

      I started with Gentoo, explored FreeBSD and various desktop distros, then moved to Debian, and then moved to Ubuntu for a few years (because deploying cutting edge Rails apps was easier on Ubuntu at the time), but after some data loss because of file system bugs and Ubuntu randomly changing things around every year, I am back to Debian (6 & 7) and have not been happier.

      Commercial support would be nice if I had to run thousands of servers or work for fortune 500’s, but it’s hard to beat having 98% of what you need in repos. `apt-get update && apt-get upgrade -y && reboot` + `apt-get install build-essential linux-headers-`uname -r` postfix mysql-server (nginx-full | apache2) git-core (ufw|firestarter|iptables)` and you have an up-to-date web-server up and running ready to install what you need. Only thing I compile by hand is ruby (but that’s not necessary if you prefer rvm|rbenv).

      In the end they are all about the same minus the nuances of the package managers (or lack of), but usually people will prefer and advocate the distro they first got excited about.

      My only complaint with all linux distros is the lack of the latest ZFS!

  2. Pedro says:

    What about Debian vs FreeBSD?

  3. Rizwan says:

    Hi,

    Thank you so much for your Article, it is really impressive and bingo to your team.

    I’m using Debian, so far i find it very stable and useful however i agree with the part of “char-bonnier Nicolas” statement about Corporate stability. Debian needs such sort of guaranteed stabilization. Nobody knows what will happen to Debian tomorrow. i wish they stay forever however no one escape from the real time truth regarding support when we are handling the Government projects or any projects which needs a guaranteed server operating system.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      Guaranteed Server Operating System or Server Operating System With Support?

      well i would like to Mention a part of Comment i received, on Linkedin here.

      If you can’t afford it, get CentOS. For everything except the labels and default color theme, it’s the same thing as RedHat.

      RedHat is like IBM. Neither company has been particularly interested in having the Bleeding Edge of technology. You ask any technologist at any time in history whether IBM has got the best technology or even the best value for your dollar, and the resounding answer will always be “NO”.

      But they don’t sell to the technologist. They sell to the businessman, who has more important concerns than just having the latest greatest “Gee-Whiz!” technology. They want stability, reliability, and somebody they can call at 2 in the morning to come FIX THIS THING NOW. That’s what they’re paying for.

      A friend of mine remarked once half-jokingly how if you had any troubles with any piece of IBM equipment, they’d send out somebody in a van, who’d work on getting it fixed. If that person couldn’t fix it, another person would step out of that van. Then another. And then another. Hundreds of IBM techs would climb out of that van, until they finally got your equipment fixed. Then they’d all march right back in, like it was a clown car, and drive off.

      Business people like that. It’s reassuring. It lets them sleep at night.

      RedHat is pretty much the same thing, only with software instead of hardware. That’s why they’re the number one Linux distribution. Not because they have any better technology than anybody else, but if you have a problem with your Linux software, no matter how major or minor, you can call them at 2 in the morning, and they’ll have it fixed before the morning rush hour, even if that means sending over the clown car full of techs.

      And again, this lets business people sleep at night.

  4. Howard Pepper says:

    Not to agree or disagree with the author, just saying: I’ve used just about every major distribution (and a lot of minor ones) over the years. I’ve had Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu and Slackware on my home file server, but by far the most stable OS I’ve ever used on my home file server is Slackware.

    That’s the beauty of Linux. Where I work, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the king of the server platform OS. Then again, I work for a fortune 500 company that can afford to pay for the RHEL subscription cost. For small business/home use, there are many very good Linux distros that can be used.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      RedHat is a Linux Distro on the way of UNIX, an OS for Business Man and not Technocrats. Well what percentage of server is running Slack.
      No offence :)

  5. Fabricio Palacios says:

    I very basic thoughts about this opinion, there really take that Red Hat is also the economic contributor may Linux and Free Software is part of the ecosystem CentOS Red Hat and completely free and has many repositories that work very well with YUM. is completely stable and does not ask for another operating system.

  6. Abhishek says:

    I read the articles on Tecmint, and I guess I am going to stay with CentOS for now. Debian is great, but from the point of view of my server, CentOS is the best I could have, at 0 cost, I guess. I am yet to try Debian on my box, so cannot be 100% sure :)

    • RoseHosting says:

      Debian is also rock solid and it usually have more up to date packages.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      @ Abhishek Try Debian, you won’t regret.

      • I once installed Debian on a laptop – The wonderfull installer wiped all my Linux systems from my disk, then it failed to install!!

        I cannot express how I feel about this “wonderfull” Distro. Me – back to Gentoo! It works – eventually and you learn a lot on the way!

        In between, I do throw in CentOS, now and then.

        SysAdmin: ClubNix, Senior wb

        • David CHALON says:

          Hum i’m near “new” to Debian as I start to work again with it since one year only.

          But since 6 months i’m preparing migration for several old servers to Debian.

          I tryed too on old PC or laptop, and never had this problem.
          Ha … have you read all the messages from the installer during the partition process ? If you choosed “erase all existing partitions and create a new filesystem with all the disk” .. and click “yes”, sure you’ll lost all .. but it’s written !

          I had dual boot or triple boot without any problem !

          Surely not a Debian problem…

  7. Sachin says:

    RedHat has standard (Administrative Point of View)

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      standard???
      which kind of standard?
      sorry but customer support does not defines the standard of a Distro, and the same implies here.

  8. JGV says:

    Sorry, but as a RedHat/CentOS consultant, I have read some inacuracies in this article must be replied to.

    Regarding some of your points:

    “5. RedHat don’t release package updates, till next release, means you have to wait for the next release be it minor.”

    FALSE, RedHat updates are released frequently, and certainly not only in point releases.

    “6. RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between.”

    FALSE, same reason as before. Just run ‘yum upgrade’ daily and check for yourself.

    “6. (…) Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.”

    FALSE again. RedHat servers can be updated at the very instant the updates are available, as any other distro. And of course YOU DON’T NEED TO REINSTALL anything. This is only true when upgrading from major version to major version, i.e. from 4.x to 5.x, or 5.x to 6.x.

    “8. RedHat package manager Yum is less mature and is not able to solve dependencies automatically, many a times.”

    FALSE, since this is in all cases problem of misconfigured repositories, mainly from third parties. I have never had a dependency conflict in RedHat/CentOS when using only official repositories. Yum is well on par with apt and friends.

    Regards
    J.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      Yum is well on par with Apt.
      hey man are you serious???

      Is the above comment from a RedHat consultant or Linux/FOSS Enthusiastic.

      • Chris says:

        Apart from being inaccurate (as pointed by JGV), your article is biased towards Debian as it may be solving the use-case for the problem you are facing.

        Quote :
        “Is the above comment from a RedHat consultant or Linux/FOSS Enthusiastic.”
        Rather than making correction to the inaccuracies in your article you are more bothered to raise credibility questions for those who pointed out.

        Kindly read this entire thread (carefully) before jumping to any conclusions:
        http://www.linkedin.com/groups/which-is-best-enterprise-linux-49301.S.203396345

      • KS says:

        I totally agree with Chris and JGV, your article is highly biased. I’ve never had dependency issues with yum. However, I’ve had some issues with apt. I’ve also seen broken Debian mirrors, corrupted or missing headers, etc. Never seen such things with CentOS.

        • Mohammad says:

          Same here, I even used unofficial repos in redhat no issues. Apt on the other hand, one broken dependency and you can’t install or remove anything.

  9. Big Jim says:

    80% bigger than 3000 package is 5400 package. Check your math.

    Updating from RHELX.y to RHELx.y+1 (say 6.3 to 6.4) is just a matter of typing “yum update”, and then answering “y” when prompted to install. I don’t see what’s so hard about that.

    All that aside, I read this article expecting to see a contrast of things like configuring ssh, setting up httpd, etc not a simple critique of the number of packages available. Disappointed.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      updation and upgradation is two different things.

      apt-get update ≠ apt-get upgrade

      This article didn’t aimed at focusing on services and its configuration, but the suggestion is taken on higher note and we will try to accommodate an article on the above suggested topic.

  10. Ariel A. says:

    Yeah indeed, in the same way there’s a known motto saying all the roads lead you to Rome, in Linux world, all the roads lead you to Debian, it simply fits everywhere you need it, no wonder why it’s the Universal Operating System.

  11. Dat says:

    The article is really good.
    To me, I am using Ubuntu for my personal purpose; didn’t try with server version.
    However I feel fine with Ubuntu (Debian) than others distributions of linux which I have installed and got stuff with :D
    Is
    Running Ubuntu on my Dell laptop is more stable than running Linux Mint or lacking drivers when running Fedora.
    Thanks for your article.
    (English is my second language :D)

  12. Bli dane says:

    I use both of them. If requestor request Debian, i use Debian. But, if requestor not request specific, i recommend using CentOS. Almost 10 year, it’s stabil

  13. Call me a fanboy, but Ubuntu is not childish to be used on real servers with real and critical data. Just take an example from Wikipedia or MercadoLibre (the biggest site to sell and buy stuff on internet on Latinoamerica).

    Just use Ubuntu LTS releases and have a great 5 years of great support.

    I really like Debian, but when the time of support matters, I just can’t (and also many bussiness) handle an unknown End Of Life of each release.

    Ubuntu gives you 5 years on Long Time Support releases and the chance to easily update to the other LTS release.

    Besides that, I use sometimes CentOS or RedHat but only because enterprise applications (Oracle) and some OS applications (Zenoss for example) only support rpm based distributions.

    I really like Debian, but when the time of support matters, I just can’t (and also many bussiness) handle an unknown End Of Life of each release.
    Ubuntu gives you 5 years on Long Time Support releases and the chance to easily update to the other LTS release.

    Besides that, I use sometimes CentOS or RedHat but only because enterprise applications (Oracle) and some OS applications (Zenoss for example) only support rpm based distributions.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      you can always use ‘alien’ program for cross platform application. Don’t know if it works with your application/System program or not.

  14. lucain says:

    “It means Debian contains nearly 80% more packages than RedHat and this is the reason Debian contains packages like openoffice, Transmission bittorrent client, mp3 codecs”

    ..And most of those 38,000 packages are not needed in a server oriented distro such RHEL so there is no official packages for them. Because for an enterprise oriented server you don’t need bit torrent clients, or mp3 codecs….

    Debian is a more generic use distro that can be used as a desktop OS or a server, red hat is a server only distro.

    “RedHat bug fixing takes considerable time, since it is controlled by a small group of people-RedHat Employee.”

    False. Security fixes on redhat are quickly addressed, also that “small group of people” erleases fixes that are widly used by many distros. Considering that red hat is one of the companies with most developers working on the linux kernel you should consider from where all the security updates come from.

    RedHat doesn’t care about bugs in open office or some multimedia player, red hat fixes a memory leakage on KVM, or a security issue on a kernel module.

    “RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. ”

    Again. False.

    “RedHat package manager Yum is less mature and is not able to solve dependencies automatically, many a times.
    Debian package manager Apt is very mature and solve dependency automatically, most of the times.”

    How much time have you used Red Hat? on which environment?

    “Installing VLC in RedHat Beta Release 6.1, is a very difficult task which requires installing tens of packages manually.”

    That is because red hat is not intended to be used to watch videos, is like using a 2 ton truck to go to the store next corner to buy a coke: a very powerful tool used in a really useless way.

  15. Alastair says:

    6. RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.
    Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away.

    Bug fixes and security updates are released regularly. Updating between minor releases is a trivial task in RHEL – as simple as a “yum update”, unless you have horked up your system amateurishly installed custom libraries and packages.

    10. Debian is intelligent in differentiating Configuration files with other files. This makes upgradation easy. The virgin (untouched) configuration files are updated automatically and the one modified, requires users interaction as the package manager ask what to do, but this is not the case with RedHat.

    Again Patently false. Have you actually ever used RHEL or CentOS? Touched configuration files are installed with .rpmnew appended to the file name.

    It seems your issues with RHEL stem from ignorance and lack of experience.

    • Avishek Kumar says:

      You simply can not call inability as ignorance. Install those custom Libraries in Debian and then tell me.

      again Updation and Upgradation is different.

      And Yeah i have used RHEL for years, before reaching this conclusion.

      Well you have your own mindset About RHEL, Based on Your Workplace and Area of Application, so no offense Man.

  16. wraithball says:

    Sorry, it seems as if you’re “experience” with RHEL/CentOS must have been a few weeks at most; because your article is full of absolute shite.

    – “CentOS is another distribution which is RedHat minus Non-Free packages.”

    You are insinuating that Red Hat has or encourages non-Free packages, but really it does not (save for vendor firmware). CentOS ONLY removes the Red Hat artwork and branding.

    – “CentOs is a stable distribution hence latest version of all packages is pushed into its RPM after testing,”

    Just reading “pushed into it’s RPM” should make anyone realize you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    – “this is the reason Debian contains packages like openoffice, Transmission bittorrent client, mp3 codecs, etc which a RedHat like distribution lacks and is required to be installed manually or from 3rd party repository.”

    RHEL cannot have MP3 codecs not because of any incompetence on Red Hat’s part, but because of legal reasons. It has open/libreoffice contrary to what you claim. The only thing that’s true is that it did not include Transmission, but that is from that is available in Red Hat/Fedoras’s EPEL repositories.

    – “RedHat bug fixing takes considerable time, since it is controlled by a small group of people-RedHat Employee. Bug fixing in Debian is very much quick as people all around the globe from Debian community, working from different geographical location simultaneously fixes it.”

    Red Hat follows upstream (similar to Debian) on most packages and backports fixes. This is very much a world-wide affair and not something done by a “small group” of people. It’s true that the TESTING of RHEL is done by a comparatively smaller group, but it is done MUCH more strenuously with higher standards & a wide variety of server hardware.
    If you are talking about the time for the bug fixes, I think you are comparing Debian Unstable or Testing with RHEL, whereas you should be comparing Debian Stable with RHEL, and you would then fine that RHEL has bugfixes incorporated in roughly the same timeline if not quicker.
    In addition, the speed of security fixes are comparable between the two.

    – “RedHat don’t release package updates, till next release, means you have to wait for the next release be it minor. Debian community believes – software is a continuous evolution process, hence updates are released on Daily Basis.”

    Again, you are comparing Debian Unstable with RHEL, when you should be comparing Debian Stable. If you want to compare debian unstable, then compare it with Fedora which is comparable.
    Debain stable does NOT have major package updates EITHER until the next release. You cannot expect debian stable nor rhel to upgrade Apache from 1 to 2 in a minor relase.

    – “RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.
    Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away.”

    I can’t tell if you are intentionally telling lies or are just completely ignorant. Red Hat releases major update every 3 YEARS, not 6 months. And most enterprises would not upgrade their existing servers to new distributions in place.
    It releases minor releases every 6 months or so, which is what I think you mistook for a major release. These releases CAN be upgraded easily with just a “yum upgrade”, and it DOES release packages (every few days if you have everything installed) in between.

    – “RedHat package manager Yum is less mature and is not able to solve dependencies automatically, many a times.”

    YUM has evolved considerably. It can solve dependencies automatically with PROPER repositories (stock, EPEL), and cannot solve it for conflicting repositories, which is the SAME as apt. It’s similar to setting up incompatible repos in apt and then expecting it to work.

    – “Installing VLC in RedHat Beta Release 6.1, is a very difficult task which requires installing tens of packages manually.
    In Debian it is as simple as apt-get install vlc*”

    Installing VLC in RHEL? What on earth are you trying to do on a server? Why on earth is this even considered a use case?

    – “You may disagree with my point of view but you can’t escape the truth, as stated above”

    This is such an arrogant claim; made even more humorous by the fact that most of your article is the exact opposite of the truth.

    Overall, although you say you don’t use Ubuntu because you think it’s “childish”, this article has your clearly childish attempts of trying to install a graphical bittorrent client and a VLC video player on what is supposed to be an enterprise server distribution, and then whining about how it’s not as good as debian for these tasks. If that’s what you need, you are very right, RHEL is not good for downloading and watching movies, but for people who need a serious, supported, enterprise distribution for servers, RHEL is the way to go.

    • fneal says:

      You are so right. This is an amateurish article from an author who clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

    • Pankaj says:

      Thanks for calling the author’s bluff. It seems the author is inexperienced with RH/Centos, at least from RH5 onwards (i have not used previous versions) as well as unwilling to accept this ignorance.
      Also, if you want more packages on RH than the thoroughly tested ones available in RH repos, you can install the fedora EPEL and rpmfusion repos for thousands of more packages.

  17. daeny says:

    This article is full of errors as pointed by others already.

  18. JD says:

    Hi,
    unfortunately I have to disagree :). The best option are RHEL or SLES for critical linux servers in enterprise area because these distros are simply under support and they have support by others hw and sw vendors. It’s doesn’t matter how much packages are in repository or if it’s difficult to install vlc or etc.

    If the oracle database, for example, is supported just on RHEL so I have to choose RHEL. Generally debian or kubuntu don’t have so wide support from the 3rd party hw or sw vendors like RHEL. Of course, if you need to build small company file server for up to 50 users or if you need simple webserver etc, maybe debian (ubuntu, slackware etc) is not a bad choice; company doesn’t need to be covered under vendor support and it will be the best choice for money/value. But for critical applications and servers choose the unsupported distribution is too risky.

  19. GTLG says:

    One of the worst articles I have ever read. Not only does the author fill his article with inaccuracies (and boy o boy does he need to go and install CentOS again) but he then criticizes a server distribution for lacking packages that no sys admin would install on a server. Really?

    When challenged by readers his response to valid points is: “Can’t change your Mindset, Sorry :) ”

    Horrible. I appreciate that we all have our likes and dislikes and that we all have our preference for a distribution but this seems to be an attack on a distribution and not a proper review.

  20. Amit says:

    The most misleading review I’ve read for a long time. Get your facts right boy, looks like you’ve never used Red Hat or it’s clones before. @JGV and @wraithball have rightly pointed out your misconceptions and you’ve most likely used only Debian based distributions!

    Absolute disgrace…

  21. aerokid240 says:

    What confuses me is your assertion that Ubuntu for servers is a bit childish? Are you kidding me? Are you using Ubuntu desktop edition as a server or Ubuntu server edition? If you worked on any linux server distro that does not use a graphical interface (straight CLI), then from an administrative point of view, there isn’t much of a difference. Locations of config files and libraries may be different; may be different utility programs installed by default; distro specific settings but you basically manage the system the same way. You open VI or preferred editor, modify config file, reload the service, read through logs, etc. No different in ubuntu than in debian.

    Managing debain server is no different from managing ubuntu server dude (that is if we are speaking of server editions of the distros).

  22. Beebop says:

    I rarely leave comments, since I actually am not a great fan of them (subject for another discussion).

    That being said, I felt compelled to leave one here. What is Linux Today News thinking in adding this junk article in it’s newsletter? (Linux Today, hope you are reading this!)

    It’s title was promising. “RedHat vs Debian : Administrative Point of View”, but I saw nothing but elementary usage of the systems compared. In a nutshell, Avishek just compared the package managers for each distro, and that’s it.

    Where was the discussion of the INSTALLER? What options do we have as far as FILESYSTEMS? What about support for SSDs? RAID options? Legacy Support? Scalability? Actual system administration, like SAMBA tools, available IDEs, SAN support, backup solutions?????
    And sooooo many other items that should have been discussed.

    But to say that one package manager is better than the other because it has more packages? Or because you THINK you have to reinstall everything on one and not the other? I have had the privilege to fix messed up installs with APT just as much as those with the yum package manager. Usual culprit? Added repositories that install incompatible packages!

    Avishek managed to say very little with many words. All that came across was his opinionated love for debian (which in fact, I personally use as well). But being opinionated does not make you a professional!

    If Linux Today’s newsletter includes another article from tecmint, I will unsubscribe, because it’s obvious that they didn’t even read the article before including it.

    • Beebop says:

      I may have been unnecessarily harsh in my criticism, especially toward tecmint.com. But I stand in my opinion that this article is rather useless.

  23. Lol says:

    What a load of horse shit. I wonder if this guys actually knows anything .

    >> It means Debian contains nearly 80% more packages than RedHat

    You do not even know common math .

    >> RedHat bug fixing takes considerable time, since it is controlled by a small group of people-RedHat Employee

    Who the hell told you that kid .

    >> Latest Debian Release (Wheezy) contains well over 38000 package .

    How many packages do you usually install on a production system ? I guess all the 38000 :D .

    >>CentOs was a good option but resolving dependency manually and reinstalling everything after upgrade was a bad idea form me and my team’s point of view.

    What do you mean resolving dependencies manually ? And there is something called Automation . I really feel sad for the NGO you and your team works for .

    >>Ubuntu seems too much childish to me

    And you seem to have a brain of a cow .

    >> Debian is a community based distribution, unlike RedHat.

    Fedora is the upstream of RedHat . For instance, RHEL6 is based on Fedora 14, RHEL5 is based on Fedora 6 and so on and so forth . God Damm it ..

    >>According to Wikipedia, Ubuntu is a based on the unstable branch of Debian but Fedora is not a derivative and has a more direct relationship and stays close to many upstream projects.

    What the F does the above statement mean ?

    >>RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.
    Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away.

    I guess the systems you support are updated everyday. You should be fired and not allowed within 100 meters of any Linux based server .

    >> You may disagree with my point of view but you can’t escape the truth

    I just wish I had’nt read this article because now I cannot escape this shit for the rest of my life . I think you should be banned from posting any article. I think I am going to throw up .

    • Geek says:

      It seems to mean that Fedora is much closer to RHEL than Ubuntu is to Debian.

    • fjw says:

      “>> It means Debian contains nearly 80% more packages than RedHat
      You do not even know common math .”

      Haha I missed that one. Author thinks 38,000 is 80% more than 3,000.

      Did anyone read this article before it went up?

  24. Frans Vanderstar says:

    I am not so familiar with servers. I install ERP-software just in a desktop (localhost). I have done this for years with Ubuntu and it works great.

    I guess with all the arguments I have read it is a matter of taste. I will never discuss Ubuntu is better than Red Hat or Suse or what ever. I tried shortly Centos but was for me too complex.

    But I would like to ask the author why is Ubuntu childish. It is Debian based and Debian is not childish? Maybe you can clarify so I can understand your point. What is difference of Debian server and Ubuntu server? Ubuntu is now stable (before not alwasy). Only with distro-upgrade i am careful. Sometimes conflicts. But i am not a techno and I leave for what it is……………let us not forget it is great software for free!!

  25. W. Anderson says:

    As a fifteen years plus user of Linux as a professional technologist – with significant experience of those Distributions listed and others, I agree with the premise and reasoning of the article writer for his choices of Debian in his company’s server environment.

    A few respondents have made incorrect judgments – particularly about Debian “support” as there are many (some quite large and reputable) commercial organizations in USA, Europe and South America, and elsewhere providing professional technical support to Debian at least “equal to” that provided by RedHat to it’s clients.

    In regard “longevity” of Debian, the idea that applications might need 20 years of service and support is ludicrous, and it is highly likely that there will be new Operating Systems paridymes at that time, even if remotely related to today’s OS.

    It appears that many commenters are rather new with Linux and Free/Open Source Software (FOSS), and therefore needs to read and learn substantially more about the history and development of this incredible software called GNU/Linux.

    • fjw says:

      There is nothing wrong with preferring Debian to RH/CentOs etc for your own deployments if you have good reason. What is wrong here is the author’s hilariously poor understanding of what he is talking about.

  26. herpderp says:

    I expected to read something about the actual administrative difference in sense of build process of packages, package management and performance, configuration differences, configuration tools, man page differences, dependencies, security and update policy and so on.

    What i read was just a blog about superficial crap that doesn’t even remotely describes what the title suggests, written by a 12 year old kid that has recently got his head around linux.

    Stop writing shitty blog-posts or get yourself around the actual matter and then write something about it, else it’s just silly attentionwhoring.

  27. I can’t help but think you introduce many ill-defined concepts here, and come to bad judgements because of them.

    Unless you’re referring to yum and RPM themselves, a comparison of RHEL or CentOS to Fedora is absolutely misleading.

    Red Hat Enterprise Linux is designed to be a server or workstation operating system, and it’s primary purpose is stability. It is, by intention, not well-suited to multimedia like VLC because the majority of Red Hat customers do not need these applications. The fact that you treat Debian unstable and Fedora as interchangable with Debian Stable and RHEL is frightening.

    “RedHat contains roughly 3000 packages.
    Latest Debian Release (Wheezy) contains well over 38000 packages.”

    If you’re referring SPECIFICALLY to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you may be correct. Red Hat, by virtue of being a commercial operating system vendor, has multiple different products. There are additional packages on their different platforms such as jBoss, Tomcat, GlusterFS, virtualization tools as part of their RHEV product.

    Select the right product and you’ll find that more packages become available to you. Additionally, while not formally supported by Red Hat, they maintain and support the EPEL repository which provides a stable source for Enterprise Linux and provides a lot of packages to expand your system. These packages aren’t formally supported, but as you said yourself, you’re not interested in supported packages, so have at them.

    “RedHat bug fixing takes considerable time, since it is controlled by a small group of people-RedHat Employee.
    Bug fixing in Debian is very much quick as people all around the globe from Debian community, working from different geographical location simultaneously fixes it.”

    This is patently incorrect. Red Hat provides bugfixes as soon as they’re available, via the updates channel. If you’re using RHEL, a valid entitlement (which is functionally like a license) is required to get access to these, which is the ENTIRE POINT of using a commercial operating system. If you do not purchase support for it, you do not get updates using RHEL. If you use CentOS, which is exactly the same software intended for people do do not want commercial support, you DO get these updates.

    Red Hat has the absolutely FASTEST average time to commit bug fixes of any commercial operating system, surpassing both Microsoft and Apple. On average, they are faster than Debian as well.

    “RedHat don’t release package updates, till next release, means you have to wait for the next release be it minor.
    Debian community believes – software is a continuous evolution process, hence updates are released on Daily Basis.”

    Red Hat provides point releases nearly every 6 months. RHEL 6.4, for instance. These updates DO provide new features, additional supported hardware, and bug fixes. This is on a stable, supported release.

    You are flatly wrong that Debian provides the same thing. Debian Stable (which is aimed for servers) does not provide similar updates. They provide security updates to resolve bugs, but they do not introduce new features into the stable operating system set. Debian UNSTABLE does release new features on a rolling basis, but the very name of the distribution – unstable – implies that it is not aimed to be reliable and rock-solid. Your comparison of them here is completely silly.

    “RedHat releases major updates every six month and nothing in between. Installing new updates in RedHat based System is a tuff task, where you need to reinstall everything.
    Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away.”

    Debian is quite easy to install bugfix updates. RHEL is equally easy. Either can be done via cron job, fetching updates daily and applying them.

    Red Hat DOES apply bugfix updates. In addition, they have a product called Satellite that makes applying these fixes to HUNDREDS of systems with a few click.

    ” RedHat is rock solid stable distribution released after continuous testing.
    Debian contains packages from stable, unstable and testing Repository. Stable contains rock solid stable release packages. Unstable contains more updated packages ready to be pushed into stable repository. Testing contains packages already tested and marked safe.”

    You are absolutely, disasterously, unaware of the purpose of Debian’s various branches. No, packages in testing are not “tested, marked safe”.

    Debian’s testing repository is for the purpose of release engineering. “testing” is where active development takes place for the next release, something that is in some cases as far away at 18 months, and in the past has literally taken YEARS. They are NOT intended to be mixed with stable and they SPECIFICALLY do not guarantee compatibility.

    Debian’s unstable branch is even WORSE. It’s codename – Sid – is named after a character in Toy Story (which all released from Debian are named after) who MANGLED and MUTILATED toys. Unstable is LITERALLY described by Debian as “a destroyer of toys” and in this case “toys” are “your server”.

    “RedHat package manager Yum is less mature and is not able to solve dependencies automatically, many a times.
    Debian package manager Apt is very mature and solve dependency automatically, most of the times.”

    Again, absolutely incorrect. At one point, there were major flame wars over dpkg vs RPM. It’s pretty clearly settled these days – RPM with Yum blows dpkg and apt-get out of the water.

    Yum supports delta RPMs, which minimize the bandwidth needed to download updates. There is no default equivalent of yum downgrade package in apt-get. yum supports mirror lists by default, which (as far as I know) is not supported by ANY Debian-based repo, let alone Debian itself, or Ubuntu. Ubuntu DOES have support for checking for the fastest repository, but once done, it still relies on a single source.

    Both apt-get and yum are VERY capable of resolving dependencies when you’re using repos designed for your OS. I have never had issues with EITHER ONE unless I’ve done something stupid, like mix packages. Neither were DESIGNED to install packages intended for other operating systems, and neither do it particularly well.

    Both are VERY GOOD at selectively installing packages from different branches of releases.

    “Installing VLC in RedHat Beta Release 6.1, is a very difficult task which requires installing tens of packages manually.
    In Debian it is as simple as apt-get install vlc*”

    There are two GLARING issues here, and both are the result of the administrator being clueless.

    The first issue is that this article was posted yesterday (October 14th, 2013), and as of that date RHEL is OUT OF BETA and AT RELEASE 6.4.

    Any administrator that has a server or workstation running an out-dated beta is an idiot, unless their boss or company MANDATED that version to go into service, in which case THAT person is an idiot.

    Secondly, vlc is not included in the RHEL operating system release. It’s a package that Red Hat does not provide support for, and as such, does not include in their repositories. It IS, however, packages for RHEL releases and made available BY Red Hat’s supported project through the EPEL which requires one command to add, and one command (yum install vlc -y) to install.

    “Debian is intelligent in differentiating Configuration files with other files. This makes upgradation easy. The virgin (untouched) configuration files are updated automatically and the one modified, requires users interaction as the package manager ask what to do, but this is not the case with RedHat.”

    This one isn’t strictly “incorrect”, but it’s pretty close. There are very different philosophies at play here.

    Debian tends to use modular config directories (/etc/apache2/conf.d/, for instance) that allow packages to provide modular config files for applications. This is extremely useful because it allows packages like phpMyAdmin to place a very small phpmyadmin.conf file in that directory.

    Red Hat distros take the position that any updating requiring a configuration file change should get the attention of the administrator, because the behavior of the application has changed.

    There are pros and cons to each approach, but I personally appreciate the Red Hat approach more. I don’t want a simple update to change how I’ve configured my applications, which in many cases DIRECTLY impact production services that interact with our customers and let us pay the bills.

    Another important place that this can be seen is that Red Hat does not activate a service by default just because it’s been installed. A single command on Debian can expose an HTTP server to the public internet, even before the administrator has had the chance to configure it.

    “Fedora uses single global repository which contains free software’s only.
    Debian contains contribute and Non-free repository along with free software repository.”

    Fedora is a very different thing than Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Like Debian, it is a project with multiple branches, and aimed at different things. The Fedora Project maintains the EPEL repository, it produces multiple installable distributions, provides security updates, enhancements, and lots of value to the user.

    This is not done with a single, monolithic repository. There are multiple supported versions of Fedora at any given moment, as well as multiple releases being actively developed, and a “somewhat in the middle” version called Rawhide.

    “Fedora uses ‘su‘ whereas Ubuntu uses ‘sudo‘ by default.”

    Fedora uses both. There is an install-time checkbox “Make user Administrator” which configures sudo. It should be noted that Debian uses su by default rather than sudo. It should also be noted that Debian and Ubuntu are VERY DIFFERENT PROJECTS and incompatible operating systems.

    ” Fedora ships with SELinux installed and enabled by default along with some other ‘hardening’ software to make things more secure by default, unlike Debian.”

    Debian is working on SELinux, and Ubuntu contains AppArmor for the same things.

    “Fedora, CentOs, Oracle Linux are among those distribution developed around RedHat Linux and is a variant of RedHat Linux.
    Ubuntu, Kali, etc are few of the variant of Debian. Debian truly is a mother distribution of a number of Linux Distro.”

    It would be more accurate to say that RHEL is build around Fedora. The Fedora Project is partly done as a release engineering effort, which results in future Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, in the same way that Debian Testing results in future Debian Stable releases.

    “Installation, of RedHat is little easy to install as compared to Debian. Internet Connection during RedHat installation is option. Internet connection during Debian Installation is optional but recommended. Moreover till squeeze, one needs to acquire WEP key, to use wifi network (installation). WEP Is not used these days and this is painful during installation of Debian, before wheezy. Wheezy supports both WEP ans WPA.”

    Both Debian and various Red Hat flavors have MULTIPLE install options, designed for different needs, such as desktop, offline, PXE boot, network connected, et cetera.

    Both have extremely simple, and extremely complicated options (but exceptionally powerful), depending on the needs of the use. Both are leading-edge, and far superior to most other distros in terms of ease-of-use and flexibility.

    My perspective:

    The very first thing a clueful administrator needs to do when finding the best tool for the job is CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE GOAL. So few people do this in general while evaluating things, and it’s one of the most vital points to do while evaluating and comparing things.

    I’ve been a Linux professional for over 10 years, and have many more years of that in terms of “working years”, as I’ve worked in multiple environments in that time.

    If you are running in an enterprise environment where your company values relationships with vendors, you really have five choices. There are really only 6 companies out there for these needs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Suse Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu LTS (with support from Canonical), Microsoft, Apple, and IBM. Oracle may get a mention here, but in my experience they’re viewed as a “derivative product” and do not instill confidence among enterprise clients.

    Debian does not even factor in, since they offer no commercial support at all.

    Things get much more interesting if you’re looking for a versatile, powerful and stable operating system without commercial support, but again, you need to identify your purpose.

    For servers and worstations, CentOS or Scientific Linux are great, as are Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS releases.

    For desktops and laptops, Debian Testing, Ubuntu stable (non-LTS) or Fedora stable releases are awesome. The caveat with Fedora is to resist the urge to upgrade simply because the newest stable has come out. This also applies to Ubuntu releases, as new bugs are introduced often. Follow a stable release of any of them until End of Life approaches, and then upgrade to the latest supported stable. This way, you spend something between 12 and 18 months with stable, updated, reasonably supported software.

  28. Rainman says:

    A quick check on Monster for Jobs

    Redhat 805
    Debian 54
    Ubuntu 135

  29. TC says:

    I am all time CentOS users and I have to say that CentOS is a very stable. I will give Debian a try since I have a lots of DVD getting from the Open Source Linux For You magazine.

  30. Debasish says:

    I completely agree with @ lucain………
    thats a true fact and you can’t neglect it..

  31. nihed says:

    Since my first use of Centos/Redhat with version 5 and later, I never saw problems with yum/rpm.

  32. Matthias says:

    TrueOS offers the same Stability like Debian & CentOS, fresher Packages, a better Package Managment and the same Experience. Whats up with an Inclusion in this Test, Bro? :)

  33. Mike Downhill says:

    “Installing the Debian updates being released everyday is a pretty easy task barely 3-4 clicks away”

    Clicks? Do you use mouse and graphical desktop on a linux server? Oh dear.

  34. Alex Borrell says:

    I’m also a Debian user. Red-Hat and CentOS are very stable, but if you need something else…..Debian is also easiest with hardware, I have small servers running Debian in Apple and Sun, which is really almost the only choice. Ubuntu is very simple to set and some edge software is more easy to configure. But if you had a high end server from HP or IBM Red-Hat an Suse would offer a good solution. Anyway, it’s also a personal matters, ow you feel more confident with your system , as all rely on an stable kernel

  35. Mick Russom says:

    I have thousands of CentOS servers and VMs out there. Anyone who thinks debian and even worse ubuntu-LTS is useable is insane. There is nothing worth sacrificing stability, documentation and the ability to get support if you need it by buying a RHEL subscription. Plus most enterprise sotware certifies against RHEL, and OEL, CentOS and scientific offer a consistent non-idiotic set of packages.

    Instlaling VLC on a server? Pfft. No sweat. I have 2.1. steaming videos for a demo. You just have to think and not install half the world’s worth of dependencies with apt.

    Apt to me is far worse than yum, and yum has grouplists which are better than metapackages imho.

    RHEL+CENTOS+Scientific is by far the most popular OS in the world WRT *nix.

    Lazy admins like debian and ubuntu, but the support is non-existent and they routinely break everything even during LTS releases in ubuntu world.

    Debian tends to be be better than the ubuntu world, but to give up stability and support and sane group packaging and documentation for apt-get install vlc, lol. No.

  36. karanik says:

    Nice article.
    I am also fun of Debian but I see all webserver “wearing” CentOS
    Maybe because the cpanel or plesk don’t have official installer for Debian.

  37. Sergey says:

    The question is how long Debian will continue to do it for free. I love what the do, but they are not charity company. More of that how long Linux team will continue to build kernels. Everybody scream about “large” open-source community but in reality all Debian Linux world is based on 10 people. As for Kernel, I doubt that more than 5 people in the world understand Linux kernel from scratch. Hence to that only commercial disto’s will continue to support following the contract, or if not, the insurance company will pay the rest. As for other free distros don’t forget nice line every-time you login: GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.

    As for me personally I choose Debian, Ubuntu LTS, Centos depend on the project type.

    For Fileservers/LAN/VIRTUALIZATION I choose Centos. For web/office/workstations I choose Debian/Ubuntu. All my customers are quite happy.

    • fjw says:

      It’s standard to claim no warranty on software licenses, open source or not. Read the EULA of any significant software and you should find it prominently.

  38. HI there on the vast lands of Linux…

    I couldn’t remain not commenting. Like on other blogs I still wonder why is there constant battle over distros???

    The question is like what kind of Porsche you drive; it depends on you preferences and goals. And if you don’t drive Porsche the you have different needs like being on Windows or OSx camp. Do you drive only on track weekend or also on daily traffic. Do you prefer coastal cruising or racing on Nordschleife. What is in your mind? What do you really NEED to do?

    I have been running family business on Linux since 1996. Best part of IT on SMB is maintenance free operation. Cost savings are very high and our infrastructure is personalized to our needs. We have full documentation of what we have and how to fix it. This would not be possible in other OS:s.

    So, to this never ending battle of best distro I have to say that is you think you can live with only one distro you have limited vision or you are hobby user.

    If Linux is your hobby then just be my guest and be happy what you can accomplish. If you are serious with free platform of universal computing then you are right in choosing Linux as your platform. There are places where you need very long term distros to be stable platform and not to work on them too much. On the other end you need fast moving distros to keep up with latest development. There is no uniform answer which is the best distro… and there should not be. Don’t you see the point. The power of Linux is its versatility that when there is a need someone finds a way to adapt our fantastic and free open sourced operating environment and gives opportunity to others to take the development even further.

    Revolution (going around) is evolution (generating new forms)

    so, in the end what we use at work: C5 to 6, SL 5 to 6, U12.04LTS, Debian 7, F18,19 and 20, Raspian, PiDora and U13.10 with several different *nix solution for firewalls and routings (no further info to public) . At home I have mixed environment with purpose or media specific environments suitable for hardware in use.

    @work long term support is preferred for installations. If you work on IT it’s nice to have something to do but when you pay for IT it’s nice to have nothing to do… but check robotics working.

    So: what’s the point of arguing for best distro… for what?

    Sorry, we need money to make world go around so we business owners have to think about returns. With Debian 7 we experienced this bug with no printing on workstations… and do you know what it costs to go around with that bug for few days…? Then you have distros which are slow (lagging behind) but keep basic operability working. Now if you are experienced you knew I was talking about EL type of dists. Yes there is money behind it but like you all should have learned the lessions about communisms and socialism ( Linux is from Finland and we were not communists nore socialists… atleast when we got freedom) you need businesses to back up free development. We know M$ and big O are bad for your health and business like politics and labour party.

    So what are you thinking? Why you don’t transfer your efforts to freedom of speech, information technology openness and FOSS. Freedom = Diversity = Personality = Beer = Choice = Changeability = Originality…

    Like Linux is. It gives you the freedom of choice and you can either choose from readily built distros of make your own… like you want or need
    …why do you you judge the diversity of Linux when you should celebrate the freedom of choice.

  39. lolbrarian says:

    LOL, I so love the butthurt in this thread. Anyway FreeBSD > Linux anytime. And it doesn’t depend on how you use it. ^_^

  40. R.Lowgreen says:

    First this:

    “this article aims to compare RedHat and Debian from an administrator point of view”

    And then:

    “It means Debian contains nearly 80% more packages than RedHat and this is the reason Debian contains packages like openoffice, Transmission bittorrent client, mp3 codecs, etc which a RedHat like distribution lacks”

    At this stage you realize the article is rubbish and the author doesn’t know anything about RHEL or let alone SERIOUS System Administration.

    Installing bittorrent client, mp3 or openoffice on your servers? WTF!?!? You are doing it wrong bro… Your poor employer, you should seriously get another job.

  41. Sam says:

    Ubuntu is great for home/personal usage, RED HAT is best for server setup. We can manully build rpms and roll out on servers. Debian we can too, but I prefer CentOS for server.

  42. Maya Padi says:

    How about Suse linux?

  43. KindaNewbie says:

    well i do have to admit, the title and content are misleading, i just spent the day setting up and attempting to install 389-DS on a centos server for the first time in my life and i see i will need to read the redhat deployment guides sssd 389-ds and openldap sections several times before i decide which DS to use and if i can even get it to work.

    I was hoping to get some info on administration and hopefully directory service info from this article. it seems configuring ldap or DS with ssl and nfs etc completely is hard to find on the web with the redhat based distros.

    ubuntu’s setup is basically a copy and paste handheld walk-though which is awesome

    i am a long time ubuntu server lts user and debian testing workstation user and i must say both are extremely stable, the only time i need to reboot is for kernel updates.

    Now after setting up centos and fedora for a test of zimbra community.
    it appears the distros are all the same, you have a kernel and you have your gnu software, it just boils down to configuring them in the distro of your choice because of it specific purpose. if the versions of the services are the same the config is the same across the distros

  44. Jamze says:

    Freud said it best,

    (Paraphrased!): Sometimes an operating system is just an operating system. Sometimes Linux is just that Linux.

    All variations on a theme – Linux Linux .01….

  45. fjw says:

    “RedHat don’t release package updates, till next release, means you have to wait for the next release be it minor.
    Debian community believes – software is a continuous evolution process, hence updates are released on Daily Basis.”

    That’s just plain wrong. Both these projects release a stable product around once every ~2 to 3 years. With Debian the development process is just more open and so they make their unstable/testing repos readily available.

Leave a Reply

This work is licensed under a (cc) BY-NC | TecMint uses cookies. By using our services, you comply to use of our cookies. More info: Privacy Policy.
© 2012-2014 All Rights Reserved.