Linux Server - Distro Choice??

Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
37
I just recently started using Linux and I am currently using SuSE 9.2 at home and I liked it felt it was a nice and very complete alternative to Windows. I since then installed it on one of the computers at work (I work for our small towns Community Computer Center) so people who come into the center to see what an alternative OS is like. Now comes my big question:

We have 25 computers at our center, a T1 connection and a wireless router for people who come in with laptops who just want access to the internet. All of this is run on a peer to peer network, I have been wanting to go to a Windows Domain Server but we can't afford the $500.00 for the Windows Server 2003 and then purchase 20 - 25 more seats on top of that. And after trying a linux desktop distro I was wondering if we could do a Linux Server. Here is what I was hoping to do and hopefully someone out there can tell me if I'm reaching or if it is all or partially possible:

Linux server as Domain server and which distro is best for this? (I was looking at Suse Open Enterprise Server any other suggestions would be gladly accepted, needs to be free or close to it we can't afford a $1000 for a Linux distro either. We are entirely Grant and donation funded)

DHCP server.

Windows Client logon authentication for individual user accounts on the domain and user file storage. We have about 200 -300 users of which roughly 50 of those are active daily but we still need accounts for users we may see once a month or less frequently.
Group policies or Linux's version of such.

The server will be on 24/7 and I would like it to have the server wake up the workstaions in the morning so they are up and running when we open in morning.

We don't need print serving we have 3 HP laserjet printers 1 B and W and 2 color that run on TCP/IP and all computers will print directly just like they do now.

I would have absolutely no problem setting this up on Windows Server 2000 or 2003 but it's not in our budget. I had no problems with setting up our new Linux worksation it has internet connectivity and access to our network printers, it was alittle different than Windows way of doing it but once I found the right interfaces it was easy.

My proposed server would probably be an AMD 64 3400+ or Pentium 4 in same price range. Tyan Server Motherboard with onboard graphics, 1-2 Gigs of DDR or DDR2 (depending on platform) 2 x 160 Gig SATA HDD mirrored, Dual layer DVD for Backups (I'm not a big fan of tape drives, too slow, too expensive and I can get a DVD burner that holds 8.5 gig for $65 compared to tape that hold 10 gig for $199)

Any help would be appreciated, I realize my experience and training is Microsoft but I think with good documentation and some time I can do it if it's possible. Networking is networking the concepts are all the same just different way of implimenting it.

Thanks!
 
Any linux distro would work fine for your needs.

DHCP server (look in your package/RPM/apt for that package)
Windows filesharing - Samba Works wonderfully, shares folders, printers, does it all, WINS, etc....

As for what distro, _any_ distro has those items available. Get the free ones. They work just as well.


For 25 users, I wouldnt even go with a server-class mobo unless you have your heart set on it.

Any dual-p3 class board or single-proccie modern P4/AMD XP/ AMD64 board will give you what you need. Just make sure you have good disk I/O for your users.

I guess good disk I/O might mean a server board with a fat pci bus instead of the lethargic ones that desktops have.
**edit** I see your server board would only have 2 160 gig'ers. A desktop board is fine for your fileserver.


I have to warn, its probably not as easy to configure as a win2k3/w2k server but its cheaper and I'd have to say, a bit more reliable (prepares to dodge the 'nix haters).
 
Really what it boils down to is if you want external support or not. If you do, look to the SuSE's and Red Hats of the world. If you don't, then just about any distro can be taliored to your needs.
 
You don't like tapes??? That's a little silly considering the actual shelf life of DVD media. I guess you've never run a nice SCSI DLT or LTO tape drive, the transfer rates would crush any burner on the market, even a DAT drive would be faster.

You are probably eligible for Microsoft charity pricing, you might want to look into that.

As for a distro, I love FreeBSD. I generally avoid Linux, simply because I remember the 2.4 kernel VM fiasco, and the fact that I read bugtraq, and kernel patching is not something I like to do often.

RHEL has either charity or educational pricing as well, you might want to look into that product.
 
Another vote for Centos but alot of these is down to personal taste.
 
Another vote for Centos but alot of these is down to personal taste.

This is true, because any distro can be tailored to one's specific needs. Ubuntu just isn't the best 'out of the box' distro for servers.
 
This is true, because any distro can be tailored to one's specific needs. Ubuntu just isn't the best 'out of the box' distro for servers.
For obvious reasons, I'm a bit biased towards CentOS myself...but it does have some minor issues that can really cause new users issues. Especially since the default mode is with SELinux on. If you aren't trained on how to work with SELinux, it can be a nightmare.
 
I'm a Security Engineer by trade, so to me SELinux is a must have on any server, but yes that's why I said Ubuntu is better for linux noobs. I use ubuntu on one of my laptops for personal use. Great distro, just not what I would personally choose for a server.
 
Ubuntu LTS would be fine for that, or CentOS

Just find whichever has better manuals for what you are wanting to do, and run with it.
 
CentOS is a far better server distribution. Ubuntu is great for desktop use and for linux noobs though.

+1

CentOS for ALL linux server needs. hands down.
its become extremely prolific as the *nix OS of choice for servers the past few years.
 
I concur on the CentOS/Ubuntu Server votes. I would also be interested to see the charity pricing quotes. Having that support available comes in handy when you least expect it.
 
Enterprise support? RHEL or SLES.

Otherwise, CentOS works well as it tries to stick to being RHEL without the cost.

Ubuntu's not a bad secondary desktop.
 
Personally, Ubuntu is my distro of choice for regular desktop use; It's geared towards everyday simplicity but you still can down into the guts if needed.

CentOS for servers definitely.
 
This is true, because any distro can be tailored to one's specific needs. Ubuntu just isn't the best 'out of the box' distro for servers.

Exactly, even the server version needs to be molded to your needs, but after customizing it, it can have very high performance.

I tend to like it due to it's great support/updates as well as its robustness, but all of the other versions really have this as well.

Really, it is just personal preference, though I have heard that OpenBSD is very powerful as well.
 
If one is somewhat up to speed with setting things up, pure straight Debian can work. It's even possible to custom tailor (to a good degree at least) an install with or without a gui.

Packages will be older than going with something like Sid or Ubuntu, but it's a bit more minimized if one enables the backports repositories..
 
I would recommend Ubuntu server 10.xx (.04 is Long Term Support, meaning they will continue to issue patches for it for a set number of years (3 I think) .10 is the current stable, that doesn't receive as much support after the next .10 releases)

Run OpenLDAP for your authentication (you will need to reconfigure with something like pGina to use OpenLDAP), SAMBA for your file server. You'll probably want to run DNS as well I would assume, correct?

DHCP is available as well.

Oh, and if you use Ubuntu, try to use aptitude instead of apt-get when your installing things from the terminal, aptitude has better support for removing dependencies if you remove something.

And feel free to PM me with questions getting setup.
 
Whoops.. I've been dealing with issues in Sugar all day, guess I wasn't paying attention.
 
My choice is usually CentOS or Fedora Core. I try centOS first, if it won't install (I have seen instances where it just refuses to install on certain hardware) then go Fedora. They are both RH based OSes are solid for servers. You can also go with RH if you want support but at that point you are paying almost as much as Windows.

Also you can setup a windows domain with Samba.
 
For obvious reasons, I'm a bit biased towards CentOS myself...but it does have some minor issues that can really cause new users issues. Especially since the default mode is with SELinux on. If you aren't trained on how to work with SELinux, it can be a nightmare.

selinux=0 added to kernel string in /boot/grub/grub.conf fixes that (pretty sad I know it offhand lol). but yeah it is a nightmare when you don't know. selinux pretty much breaks anything that could potentially be a security issue, such as any server that shares files. It's VERY secure, but it's also equivalent to just putting scotch tape on the pins of the ethernet cord. there's security, then there's usability. Need to find the happy medium.
 
selinux=0 added to kernel string in /boot/grub/grub.conf fixes that (pretty sad I know it offhand lol). but yeah it is a nightmare when you don't know. selinux pretty much breaks anything that could potentially be a security issue, such as any server that shares files. It's VERY secure, but it's also equivalent to just putting scotch tape on the pins of the ethernet cord. there's security, then there's usability. Need to find the happy medium.
There's that, or the RH recommended way; edit /etc/sysconfig/selinux and set SELINUX=disabled.
 
for the server end of things I stick with freebsd. if I HAD to use linux, I guess gentoo. I just don't like the limitations of binary package managers.
 
Back
Top