There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

utopiah ,

I’d argue that beyond the distribution itself it’s a lot more about what you install that will make the difference. If you can basically stick to the console and connect via ssh you’ll have a lot more resources available, both bandwidth (assuming you were planning to see a remote desktop) needed but also disk, CPU and RAM. There are lightweight WM e.g ratpoison but IMHO a server should be headless.

So… yes Debian but IMHO Debian without any desktop, just boot with sshd running, Ethernet cable plugged in and connect remotely.

PS: I’d also check if a RPi could be sufficient. I’m running few RPi4s and RPi Zero with 100Go+ microSDs and that’s very small, silent and doesn’t consume much energy. I understand it’s appealing to upcycle old hardware but in the long run, e.g 1 year running 24/7 might not be worth it.

wiikifox OP ,
@wiikifox@pawb.social avatar

rPis for me aren’t an option as there’s no way to buy one here, first hand at least. And the electricity isn’t really an issue as I pay it by estimates.

Also must say the server only purpose is to run long tasks without occupying my daily use PC. I don’t have Ethernet internet either, so I can only put it online sharing connection with my laptop or with a (future) wireless expansion.

illectrility ,
@illectrility@lemmy.world avatar

Debian

2xsaiko ,
@2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

NixOS. Not going to switch away from NixOS for servers probably ever even if I decide to distro-hop on my desktop in the future. It’s essentially what “traditional server distro + docker + ansible” can only dream of being. If you don’t mind learning a very different system, that is. Also the size of its package repository is only rivaled by AUR ;)

bear ,

Adding my voice to the Debian choir.

hperrin ,

Ubuntu Server is always a solid choice. If you’re not comfortable without graphics, you could go Lubuntu instead.

Basically anything you could want to put on it is available in either the repos or a Docker image.

MigratingtoLemmy ,

If you want good support: Debian.

Other options include Alpine and Slackware (the former is the base of many OCI compliant containers, it’s lighter than Debian usually).

No, Gentoo, Void and Arch are not server distributions.

FreeBSD is also pretty good, although at this point, the only real argument I have seen for the BSDs is their close-ness to Unix more than anything else. If that is something you really need, you know where to go

nyan ,

Gentoo, at least, is an unspecialized metadistribution that can be used for whatever purpose you can come up with. It can certainly be put on a server, but for someone lacking Gentoo experience the learning curve might be a little steep, and depending on exactly what software you want, compiling it may take a while on an older machine.

So speaking as a Gentoo user, Debian is a not-unreasonable choice for this use case. It’s certainly stable enough.

30p87 ,

Probably Debian. It’s basically the most used distro, and therefore has many online resources.

  • Old software, but very stable.
  • No bloat, very clean.
  • No custom programs interfering with any configurations etc.
  • Support for many server software etc.

If you want an even cleaner OS, where (nearly) everything is under your control and as lightweight as possible, Arch would be for you. There’s the bonus of the AUR, but the huge problem of newest, “unstable” software, though I’ve yet to experience any problem on testing repos, except for the Nvidia drivers. In general, Debian should be enough of lightweightiness and control.

slacktoid ,
@slacktoid@lemmy.ml avatar

Slackware

KISSmyOS ,

seconded.

danielfgom ,
@danielfgom@lemmy.world avatar

Debian. You can install it headless and do everything from the command line. Or if you need it, install a lightweight desktop like XFCE.

fraydabson , (edited )

I use arch.
edit: lol while I am new to arch, I guess I kind of expected people to disagree with me. I was under the impression that stock arch is very lightweight? I know there used to be jokes about “I installed Arch” cause it’s supposed to be hard. But I installed Arch on my desktop and server recently, I did the manual install on my desktop and the guided install on my server. Both super straight forward. Plus Arch seems to have some of the best documentation across distros. I don’t know why it should not be suggested, unless I am missing something.

myersguy ,

Most people want stability (low change) for servers. Arch is typically run where plentiful software updates are welcome. It’s not that you can’t/shouldn’t use Arch for servers, but it isn’t the most conventional suggestion.

bastion ,

A lot of people are saying Debian, because Debian.

Debian. I’ve literally run Debian stable with uptimes of over a year.

giacomo ,

I like debian

NegativeLookBehind ,
@NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social avatar

Debian.

rodbiren ,

MicroOS has worked well as a server for me. Run everything as a container. Use caddy and portainer for reverse proxy and container manager respectively. Auto updates, immutable, and has been bulletproof for me for awhile now.

jvrava9 ,
@jvrava9@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I run Debian

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •