I’ve come across Red Hat allot lately and am wondering if I need to get studying. I’m an avid Ubuntu server user but don’t want to get stuck only knowing one distro. What is the way to go if i want to know as much as I can for use in real world situations.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ubuntu, RedHat, AWS Linux, Arch. Honestly distros in production are pretty similar since they’re all headless and pretty pared-down. If you just know the logistics of a few package managers and init systems you’ll be good.

    • Bogasse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m surprised to see arch on your list, I know everything runs in containers now but arch seems way too unstable O_o

      By unstable I don’t mean “buggy”, but “you will have to adapt to new major version of package XXX or you can’t fetch updates anymore, so no security patches anymore”.

        • dino@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are probably not an IT Admin. Never heard about any server being deployed on Arch anywhere.

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m a devops professional, not IT. I’ve managed thousands of servers both in-cloud and in-datacenter. That includes Arch servers managed via Chef.

            Now you’ve heard about it.

            • dino@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So whats the point of a unstable bleeding edge Arch server, seriously curious. Also if you are not IT than I don’t know what IT is, lol.

              • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t find it more unstable or bleeding edge than anything else. All upgrades had to be tested and scripted anyway so the process for upgrading stuff was basically the same as any other distro. I honestly never ran into any of the problems people talked about here.

                As for why it was chosen, the person in charge liked it and used it personally.

        • Bogasse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean you never received any major package update on arch ? 😛

          More seriously, it depends on what we are talking about, if everything runs in container I agree that it kinda doesn’t matter, you will just have a more up to date kernel, but it is stable enough.

          Other peoples on this thread are talking about actual system dependancies, for example installing a postgres server from official repo. On this example it would require a database migration as soon as a major postgres version is released, which means some downtime and non-scheduled maintainance.

  • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Depends on context.

    If you want to get a job as a “Linux admin” then Red Hat is basically what you want as a “default”. Fedora will give you something you can use at home that’s broadly similar. You will need to learn more than just that though.

    • dino@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Using Fedora at home because you have to use Red Hat at work? NOPE, thanks. Also I wonder if that RHEL focus is mostly american companies? Because here in europe I rarely see RHEL used from my limited perspective.

  • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I once worked in for a small publishing company years ago, circa 2005, where they used CentOS on the desktop and server environments. Deploying a new desktop was as simple as using kickstart. They had their infrastructure down to a science.

  • Fafner@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    To tag onto this, what makes RHEL so special? Is it just the support you get from Red Hat or is there something about the distro that makes it so widely used?

    • gumpy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Beyond support agreements that others are mentioning, the huge requirement for the shop I work at (mid-scale high performance computing center) it’s 3rd party vendor package support. Mellanox/nvidia, whamcloud, slurm, vast, and on and on. Driver packages targeting rhel kernels are an industry standard offering if a vendor supports linux. That’s not always the case with Debian variants, for instance.

      Same with huge applications and proprietary compiler suites (think matlab and the intel compiler suite or OneAPI). These are hugely important packages for a number of shops.

      Don’t get me wrong, I can build against plenty of other distros but my vendors target rhel as a first class citizen for both build scripts and straight binary packaging.

    • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Support contracts for risk mitigation is a big part of it, and the other is RH release engineering is amazing.

      Aside from that, RHEL, and clones, is a very straight forward, clean distro. It’s very focused with everything doted and tidy, and overall, it has a very uncomplicated feel to it. In contrast Debian derivatives are kind of messy, and SUSE tries to stuff every function into a single application.

      RHEL does push a lot of technology. Out of the stable distros, it will be the first to put tech into production. RH does a lot with integration with other systems. This has kept me off of SUSE in the past. RHEL was more tech forward, comparatively.

      • SALT@lemmy.my.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        dnf downgrade

        dnf history undo

        dnf history redo

        it’s very very very critical for most case :')

          • SALT@lemmy.my.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s hard, and better have package manager built in. It’s not enough in the enterprise sadly… Just saying, and I think most Corporate with agree with it.

            • nicman24@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the package manager will have it built in with a simple hook. works great with unattended upgrades.

    • TwinHaelix@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is 100% the support. Corporations pay big money to have experts on call to fix things fast when they break, and there’s basically no other player for that kind of model in the Linux space.

    • recnexus@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The support is a huge part of it. Being able to submit a ticket or call in to get help with a strange quirk is extremely valuable to a lot of companies. Additionally, having a licensed distribution like this means there’s built in trust. Red Hat has been a big player in this space forever and are well trusted already, too. So there’s a huge community of people who have used the product to talk to or hire. They also have certifications for rhel, supported by Red Hat, and those carry weight in the industry to some degree.

  • borlax@lemmy.borlax.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of my personal servers are Debian. My last company switched their entire production fleet from centos to Debian. I think a lot of people switched to Debian back when the Centos Stream debacle went down.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mission critical server mostly are RHEL or EL Clone or Fedora or it’s derivative… If you combine even Azure nowdays, Microsoft Linux is derived from Fedora, same as Amazon Linux, and others… Debian are covering some part, but mostly hobbyist, or SME, and mostly non critical, as they don’t have standard across, even on their https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended and https://www.debian.org/consultants/

      apt also bad when you got to dowgrade package when something mess up, and get messy with dpkg… :'(

      So I quite doubt if it’s production env, mostly go with EL. I do know some company use Ubuntu/Debian, but it’s quite few…

      If Ubuntu/Debian want to shape Industries, and kick out RHEL, they need to have standard, and better consultancy than RHEL. I hope so that they could grow and make market competitive, but for now it isn’t sadly.

  • stewsters@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been seeing a lot of alpine based containers recently. Used to see a lot of Ubuntu, debian, redhat.

    I think a lot of it depends on if you are spinning a lot of containers up.

  • NixDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It really depends. I work for a large company and we use Ubuntu, Oracle, RedHat, and SLES. We were moving from Oracle to Ubuntu but now we are going back to RedHat.

    Currently we deploy like this: Ubuntu: PostgreSQL, web servers, some engineering workstations, and big data Oracle & RedHat: web servers, security applications, and network systems

    So just having a fundamental understanding of Linux and you will be fine SUSE: SAP and HR software

      • NixDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mostly cost. We used to run a lot of Oracle databases and they have become extremely expensive to keep running. So we are migrating to PostgreSQL. The servers were getting migrated to CentOS but now that RedHat fucked that distro we are going back to RedHat. Part of that deal is switching from chef to Ansible. So to save costs we are consolidating to a single vendor.

  • nicman24@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    i dont get why people do not just use debian. especially if they got their own it person / support

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Personal take: RHEL is a very high quality well integrated OS. Debian is a mess of community opinion all conflicting held together by outdated and poor tooling.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.id
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No certification and no support. Critical bug will be fixed faster in RHEL than Debian when come to Enterprise, very clear structure and powerful consultancy.

      Debian consultancy never near RHEL, that’s why they need to work hard on that, and make industry standard.

      Red Hat drive the industry standard for more than 20 years… That make every Corp lean to it, and it won’t dwindling soon… Unless other are making Debian standardized.

      Ubuntu tried it, still not even taking chunk I guess? Mostly Enterprise is RHEL/Clones.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No certification and no support. Critical bug will be fixed faster in RHEL than Debian when come to Enterprise, very clear structure and powerful consultancy.

        that is just corp talk for “it is not my problem”

        I dont know ubuntu server, which i mostly use because of livepatch, with unattended upgrades seem to fare better than the rhel deploys that i have done - and the customer never updated. Granted the last is not enterprise but Uni bioinfo servers but still.

        • SALT@lemmy.my.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, it’s not fully about corp talk. I also have some University use RHEL, well, I would argue, in university, some do use ubuntu because it easiness to install and maintain, welp… But selinux vs apparmor… better use selinux in EL than in Ubuntu… haha… *most junior sysadmin fvk tup in Ubuntu when set it up… so In the end they just use… Well, EL Clones :/

          But for research, I do agree, for NLP/ML, mostly I don’t see any EL Clones deployed in labs, most Prof use Ubuntu and Nvidia drivers… Scientific linux is well known then centOS stream, just they still don’t budge to move… this is hard to crack question, I never know why no EL, but I guess because ubuntu nvidia prefered driver done its best, better than CentOS/Fedora