is arch any good for servers

i should clarify that when i say 'has to ship with python 3.5 and 2.7', i mean that I have to be able to install both of those versions through a package manager so i can use pip.

That's just horrible

>bleeding edge distro for server
I wouldn't recommend that unless it's some hobby project you're hosting from home

Install CentOS

>>58663838
well, it is going to be hosted from home, but it still needs to be a server. I'll look into centos, thanks!

>>58663838
This. The last thing you want to have to do is tell your parents otp how to fix their server while you are in another state.

>>58663775
>>58663838

>Running a server with systemd.

File: 1470734963719.jpg (62KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x720px

I heard that Fedora Server is good for running a home server. Take that with a grain of salt though because I don't actually run a server yet.

Debian or CentOS, depending on if you have experience with debian based distros setting up a debian server is quite easy. CentOS if you want some more security, and up for a little bit more effort.

Use arch with the LTS kernel and only install the packages you need. I use arch on my home server with no issues but I don't care if it does break since it is for personal use

Sup OhPee

Lemme tell you a story about Arch Linux and servers: Arch will only remain stable as a server if you do NOT upgrade any packages and use the LTS kernal. Otherwise you could find your servers crashing due to incompatible upgrades with previously installed software. I tried using Arch for business, but every few days something broke, and the only support you'd ever get is a bunch of faggots saying "lulz you don't know how to upgrade, and roll back packages, newb."

If you value your time, don't use arch for productivity, but use it as a learning tool or rice box. I'd say debian, fedora, or centOS make great server OSes because the're stable and their community repos only release packages that are dependent on the current version of the software you're running.

With Arch you'll just end up wondering what went wrong when your GTK3 app isn't compatable with the current kernal or why some git software breaks your login screen. I've lost more time and work with arch than any other distro. Memes aside, its a great distro for the linux enthusiast, but sucks if you're looking for a working powerhouse.

If you REALLY value your time, just use xubuntu-lts and chill. Its light, does the job and has that "just werks" feel that allows you to just install and work. The drawback to ubuntu is that you wont be getting the latest packages, but unless you exclusively develop for linux, than its pointless to be up-to-date in small increments. Xubuntu is probably the best best for operating systems when it comes to production.

Ubuntu + unity is just damn gay. Might as well just use gnome3. But xubuntu is the most simplistic and stright foward.

Just my text wall of an opinion.

>>58664394
Any sensible server operator would know very well how to run it without a GUI/visual interface, using a CLI alone, so recommending a distro to run as a server based on what DM/WM it runs is dumb as fuck.

OP, just run Debian or CentOS, with Debian being more stable and user friendly, and CentOS being stable, less user friendly, but more secure overall (SELinux...)

>>58663775
do u even sticky ?

>>58663775
If you are not using Gentoo then use Debian.
The end.

Yeah, works great. I run Arch on a server at my house.

Try NixOS, OP.

>>58663775
gentoo is perfect, why would you care about compilation times on a server retard. I have gentoo running on a core2duo laptop acting as a remote server and it just werks.

>>58663775
It's quite stable, but it doesn't backport security updates, so you'd probably be downloading 1G of updates every month or so compared to debian.

File: oh shit nigger.jpg (18KB, 366x380px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x380px

>>58663775
>arch on a server

>>58666102
Oh, and you'd have to restart with every kernel upgrade.

>>58663775
Arch provides all for you, it seems.

>just use debian
Stable debian will give you pythons 2.7 and 3.4.
Stable debian will give you nginx version 1.6.2, the current being 1.11.9. I've personally ran into multiple issues with running this old version.
If these don't sound fitting, you can always use the rolling release debian, or any other rolling release distro.
The stable version though fails OPs requirements with python versions. Not sure if he needs the exact versions though, and he could use some other release or repo anyways.

And, all linux systems have a package manager, but here's your reminder that apt on debian is the only one that you have to edit config files for to use properly because of the way debian's repos are set up.

>>58666003
Right, I need to try this too. But given it's relative weirdness, there's a lot of documentation online that might not apply.

centos debian or ubuntu as server if you arent autistic and want to set up a decent server
/thread

>>58664138
I use fedora server, it's pretty good. I actually have less issues than with Ubuntu server.

Slackware is another decent choice. you get the stability of a safe way to upgrade packages since the team is very much on the ball when it comes to security patches.

Stuff that can break your system, like say glibc, is basically only upgraded to a newer version whenever there is a new major version of slackware being released.

You also get the freedom of compiling whatever your heart's desire. Slackbuilds.org has a crapton of scripts. slpkg from github makes dependency checking a breeze.