Ask HN: Web server development platform, Red Hat or Ubuntu

Why not Debian??<p>I mean if you're considering Ubuntu, why not try the original? I use Debian as my main development box for exactly the kind of work that you're thinking of doing and I love it.<p>With Debian you will learn more about Linux than you will running either RH or Ubuntu. And if anyone thinks the Ubuntu repositories are great... They should also try Debian.

I personally prefer Ubuntu because the support is great in terms of community as well as repositories.<p>When you are doing a startup, your time is very limited and I believe you should go for anything that saves time &#38; hassle without trading off much.<p>Btw if you are on Windows right now, you can still install and use Apache on it. There are differences but it'll be good enough for prototyping.

Why not both? Install one of them as the base, grab something like VirtualBox[1], and install both of them in virtual machines. Take a week or so, then pick your favorite. As a bonus, once you've picked, you can mimic having a production server on that machine with a Linux VM with just the basics (Apache/lighttpd + interpreter).<p>I'm actually in a similar boat. I'll be building a dual-core box (intel barebones + cheap processor + 4 GB for &#60;$300) to use as a dev machine in addition to my Mac.<p>[1] = VirtualBox doesn't support multiprocessors for hosts. You may want another solution, but I haven't investigated the free Linux virtualization market at all (I think VMWare has a free Linux server, but I have no idea of its features). Paravirtualization is another option for a Linux-on-Linux solution, but I think it's too complex for this.

try OpenBSD, it's simpler<p>fast install: ~5 mins default + ~5 mins untar my-essentials.tgz + ~5 mins mercurial sync ... my box is <i>production</i> ready (sans user database)<p>easy upgrade: untar the tgzs, kernel, sync /etc from newer OpenBSD<p>no automatic update: it makes default install uniform, when $hit happens, just order another colo server with default install, ftp my-essential and resync<p>package &#38; port &#38; source: complete freedom ... for contrast, try to build (then patch) vim from source in ubuntu (you can't)<p>now the 'bad' thing: few forums: but most questions are answerable from OpenBSD's FAQ, afterboot and man pages<p>less new driver: good luck installing bluetooth (can't)<p>older software: only firefox 2, no ff 3 in packages and snapshot port (ff3 site lists binaries for xp, osx, and .mar? source ... no idea how to compile .mar)<p>i use OpenBSD as server (colo) and desktop ... then vnc my mac mini for ff3+firebug (i don't bother with linux emulation, dual boot, vmware etc)<p>old simple vnc works across OS/arch ... i avoid fancy newer tech. Can you run i386-ubuntu and powerpc-tiger in one desktop?<p>i had enough of ubuntu, can't install from source, auto-update always break things (i finally quit after my ubuntu retarded to 800x640 and failed attempts at xorg.conf)<p>oh wait, did i mention about the quality of the OS by OpenSSH maker? Last time my colo lasted 4xx+ days without reboot

Redhat is a commercial product that you have to pay money to use. CentOS is supposed to be a pretty good server OS.<p>However, I'd choose Ubuntu (and have) for this reason, amongst others: you can run the same OS on your server as on your desktop. You might be able to do that with Fedora, too, but Fedora is not Redhat's main focus, like Ubuntu is with, well, Ubuntu.

As far as productivity and development goes, you won't experience much of a difference. In terms of enterprise history and endorsement, RedHat wins, but that is largely immaterial.

RH = the windows of linux, stay away.

If you don't know the answer, it doesn't matter to you. Flip a coin.