Username or EmailPassword
for a new user: OpenSuse / Fedora / Ubuntu
power user: Arch or Gentoo or Slackware
servers: debian or FreeBSD or Arch or Gentoo
Gonna rant for a bit on the RedHat / CentOS on servers thing. I can't stand the fact they always say "we backport security patches and keep shit updated, but stable" No, what you're saying is you don't trust the developers who wrote the actual code to fix their shit and you want to charge people for your patches. a) you're introducing new code just by making your changes, so your patches can be just as unstable as any other patch and b) tracking security releases for stuff like Apache from Apache is a lot smarter to me then tracking RedHat Apache patches.
Now, in a perfect world FreeBSD would have better hardware support and a lot more money behind it. It's the best of all worlds. You can do a full binary distro with binary patches or go compile mode and track the ports system for latest releases or write your own ports. It's got a stable core and applications do a rolling release.
Now if only a Linux distro would do that for servers. Arch with a slower moving "server-core" and "server-community" repos would be awesome. A kernel compile for servers and rolling release of applications. Sure, you don't do major version changes without changing actual packages, but tracking apache22 or mysql55 should track the security patches for that major release.
Like someone else in this thread said, an internal package repo (aka: WSUS) and cfengine / Puppet (aka: AD group policy), LDAP (aka: AD), ZFS with NFS and iSCSI (aka: DFS) and some testing infrastructure would let a pretty small team manage a very large Linux farm without much trouble. Edited 2012-10-23 06:51 UTC