How do you use Linux?

[gmiller1977]

I have to note that of the various questions, only Fox seemed to understand the question. HOW do you use your LINUX desktops? Not whether Windows (or Linux) sucks or why it sucks.

I suppose I could have also asked is what hardware your main system (come on now, everyone has one system they use the most) but if not, pick one. Along with how well it runs and what kind of programs and how many could be largely affected like this. I'll mention how I use my PC after I see some more posts.

I noticed that gmiller doesn't use Linux on the desktop. In that case, what do you run on your Linux server? I'm guessing you have one for yourself, right? Or what do you often run for your clients? What are the specs on it? Is it virtual or bare metal? Anybody can jump in here. I'm hoping that some other Linux server gurus like cod3poet and Scott jump in here, too.

To expand on my answer to your original question:

I use Linux on servers for small businesses.

The software I run is:

Latest Debian 64-bit build (switching to Ubuntu versions if there is a problem with hardware support and then rolling to an LTS build ASAP)
Samba (Windows file sharing)
SSH (for remote support)
rsync for local backups to external HDD
On occassion I've also created VPNs between branch offices (PPTP and OpenVPN)

I configure all systems with a minimum of 8GB of RAM (although 16GB is now the more normal configuration) and whatever the most cost effective Intel processor is at the time.
I put in 2 x HDDs and use mkraid for RAID1.

I create swap partitions (not files) that are 1.5x the amount of installed RAM.

I never have any performance problems running the above services/applications, nor do I ever hit a wall with respect to RAM (even on the 8GB systems). 

I've run Ubuntu virtualized on a Hyper-V host years ago as a file server.  I had already created a private cloud for them, so adding a fileserver virtually (versus on the metal) made more sense for them.  It ran quite well. 

I've had Linux servers that have had uptime into 4+ years; so stability is not an issue.

I don't have a Linux server of my own.  I used to, it ran on an old Power Edge T100-II (Core i3 processor 8GB of RAM).  I migrated all of it's services to my existing desktop that does not run Linux.

Please let me know if you need anything else from me for your research.

[Jason]

Yea, but he's really smart - no fair!

LOL. Don't encourage him. It'll go straight to his head.

[Jason]

Don't you have to reboot for some kernel updates, gmiller? I use live patching on our Linux server but not all the kernel patches can be applied this way.

[gmiller1977]

Don't you have to reboot for some kernel updates, gmiller? I use live patching on our Linux server but not all the kernel patches can be applied this way.

I'm guessing this is a little out of scope for your question, but I'll answer:

Debian typically doesn't roll kernel updates out like other distros.  It's old, and slow, and stable and SUPER boring.  This is why MOST people don't like it.  You get previous versions of software or WORSE.  "Why would I want package-1.2.3 when I could use Ubuntu or Fedora and get package 2.1.4?!"  Well, because package-1.2.3 has been reviewed by one of the most upstream distribution teams and it's been vetted, (as best it can) to be stable and secure.

Of course, some updates do require a restart; but, we read the patch notes, *before* we install right?  Do you install kernel updates if they aren't required on your system/configuration?  Rolling a number forward from 8.02 to 8.03 doesn't mean something is better or necessarily safer.  Patch for a threat in your configuration. 

Personally speaking, it's been a LONG time that I had to worry about risk from established software (there have been though!); most of the issues come from things like Drupal, WordPress, etc - but none of these things run on the systems I maintain, so I don't care.

I hope that helps.

[Jason]

The PLUG website is hosted on a Ubuntu LTS server. Programs and the kernel aren't just updated just to get the most recent version. Patches are only released to fix vulnerabilities and bug fixes and they're usually coming from Debian. An LTS release of any distro should be about the same as with Debian stable but the distros based on Debian are certainly comparable. While I've only been running the present server since 2018, all the kernel fixes I've seen with Ubuntu LTS are security-related or related to serious bugs. I apply them all. Thankfully, a lot of them are applied automatically through their live patching system.

I just can't see running servers with an uptime of years and up any longer unless everything is done with live patching. There are just too many security patches for the kernel, many of which would apply to any hardware or software stack running with it. There was a security patch released for the Debian stable kernel recently that should be applied by everyone and four last year. I don't think the kernel (or Debian) is becoming less solid. On the contrary, lots of bug fixes, whether security or otherwise, tells me that the software is being actively maintained. I worry about software that seems to never release patches unless the software is very simple.

We used to have several members that were gangbusters about Debian on the desktop and server. I haven't heard anything about members using it for the desktop but I think some still have servers running it, including yourself, gmiller. I know it was the main go-to for web servers at one time. No idea if that's still the case. Does anybody else with servers want to jump and let us know?