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 Security needs are also the reason why I’m leaning away from using something like Debian, because how outdated the packages are would likely leave me open to vulnerabilities.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?

  • asudox@lemmy.world
    3·
    3 months ago

    Ubuntu server, though I am thinking of using arch even though it is a rolling distro. It doesn’t really matter. As long as docker is supported, I am fine using any.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 months ago

      I wouldn’t personally use Arch on a server. The rolling release could cause a lot of problems, especially since you lack the ability to seamlessly integrate older versions of packages like with gentoo masking.

    • djsaskdja@reddthat.comEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Do you have a plan on how you’d do version controlling on Arch? It’d be annoying to upgrade, something breaks, and you can’t easily roll back.

      • asudox@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        I’ll just wait a few days or even weeks before doing any big updates, read the news page of archlinux.org and maybe some forum stuff. Nothing broke so far on my personal laptop, but I also don’t tinker alot. All of the data of the containers are also stored in a storagebox from Hetzner so the system breaking wouldn’t even mean that much, I’ll just restore from a snapshot and everything will be fine.

        I also might think of switching to NixOS instead. They say it’s hard but pays off well and can be very stable.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        you can’t easily roll back.

        This has always been a tricky thing to get right, and half the problem is that so many people don’t (yet) realize why it’s valuable/important. For many, I claim it’s a fundamental problem in their packaging choices that make a roll-back difficult; and even the closest we have - stomping an old package release over the new - is only effective with a perfect replacement of content moving forward and back.

        Here’s the sad news: no one’s done it under linux. The amount of data to convert and revert is daunting. One Unix (not linux) distro did it, but that was around y2k and may have stopped. And they faked it by maintaining configs where the software installation sits and symlinking into the install trees to get binaries from (eg) /usr/install/httpd/1.3.13/sbin/httpd to just /usr/sbin/httpd and /usr/install/httpd/1.3.13/etc/httpdto/etc/httpd` – you get the idea. They’d convert configs upward but ‘revert’ by just adjusting symlinks. But even here, config and other changes SINCE upgrading would be lost in the downgrade, and that’s an issue.

        If we ignore configs, one distro was fantastic in upgrading and downgrading so that while they don’t roll back, they roll down if needed. Upgrade your entire OS from v4 to v5? Sure. apt-get dist-upgrade. Want to go down from 5 to 4? apt-get dist-downgrade may have been the roll-down command, but I don’t remember. But it worked. Ohh, did it work like a magic trick. And they tested the hell out of it too, as it was their one massively cool feature.

        Conectiva ran on that platform for years until it ran low on funds, got the great idea to go in with SuSE and others on a united linux, got the same ‘removed kicked over the fence’ from their SuSE ‘partner’ like we got, and ran out of money trying to bludgeon this afterbirth into an OS they could sell (they couldn’t). I think this dist upgrade and downgrade feature was lost when they joined mandrake to stay alive and keep their people working, but working with SuSE in United Linux may have sapped their spirit like it sapped ours.

        In short:

        • roll-back is hard
        • faking it is hard
        • few have faked it
        • packaging format is a huge reason why
        • RPM can roll down packages but debs and others can’t as well.
        • YMMV like your goals may vary. It’s all good.

        I know my comment here is controversial, and I know someone’s gonna look at 25 years of history and be all “what a dick for disparaging Stampede Linux like that” and downvote, and that’s okay. I honestly don’t want to come off like that, but I am biased from working and supporting linux distros professionally, which may not be valuable to some. Again, all good.