Usually debian, security patches are regular. Cons: packages can be a bit old.

Which might not be a problem for servers in most cases.

FreeBSD. (Ok, not a linux distribution, but it's an alternative to using a linux distribution.)

I would like to hear more about why you use it. I used to use FreeBSD for everything, but it's my understanding that the once significant differences in performance and stability between Linux and BSD no longer amount to anything. I switched to Gentoo (can not give up source builds!) two years ago.

It typically has less to do with performance or stability than with ease of use. While Linux is piling on features, BSD focuses on clean design and quality of code and documentation. Linux is "do it now," BSD is "do it right."

I hate to press you on this point -- the wreckage of many a flame war has barely had time to grow moss -- but can you point to a specific feature? I assume you mean OS level features -- system calls and such.

I don't understand your question. Do you mean you want an aspect of FreeBSD that's easier to use?

Sure.

Hmm... well, BSD init is easier to use than SysV init. The ports system is also known for its simplicity. The source code is contained in a single CVS tree and the entire OS can be built with a few commands. The man pages and handbook are consistent and well written.

Much of the difference is subjective. FreeBSD feels coherently designed, whereas Linux is a patchwork of programs written by different people with different styles and philosophies.

I don't know a lot about Gentoo (most of my experience is with Debian and Slackware) but from what I understand, its purpose is to be as flexible as possible. That's a legitimate goal, but it seems to conflict with ease of use.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS 64-bit. It is beyond me why so many people use non-LTS release of Ubuntu on their production servers.

What does LTS have to do with production? Unless you plan to leave your servers still for 7 years I don't see why you can't use the latest and greatest. It isn't as if LTS if the only one that gets patched, it just gets patched for the longest.

To get up to date packages?

Debian Stable

CentOS 4.4. (I'd upgrade to 5, but it's a huge pain on SliceHost at the moment.)

Why is it pain?

Amazon EC2 Ubuntu 7.10 gutsy AMI built using code customized by Eric Hammond <[email protected]> For more information: http://ec2gutsy.notlong.com

Ubuntu 7.10 server

Same here. Easy to admin and stable.

Solaris whenever I can, CentOS5 otherwise. Solaris has excellent threading and some apps I run for customers therefore run better on Solaris.

Not linux.. FreeBSD

Debian

RHEL4, though the site's a few years old. Would do RHEL5 if it was today.

Personally, I run Debian. But RedHat really does a good of not breaking stuff at the cost of less frequent updates.

Gentoo all the way.

You're Ezra Zygmuntowicz, right? (If not, sorry.) So why so little about Gentoo in "Deploying Rails applications"?

CentOs 5.0, for the easy Virtualmin GPL install

rPath ( http://www.rpath.com/corp/ ) with custom patches.

I need reliability, with a bias on using source code to produce my running binaries.

Of course, I run NetBSD.

Slackware

I use FreeBSD (not GNU/Linux), Debian and Ubuntu on my servers.

Gentoo on two, ArchLinux on one

Gentoo, both desktop and server

Debian Etch

Fedora core 8 Solaris Ubuntu

Why the heterogeneous environment?

Ah, okay.

I thought you were using all three at the same time, which sounds like a big headache for dubious benefit. :-)

Slackware.

CentOS 5.

I use Ubuntu 7.10 64bit.

CentOS 5

Centos

Debian testing

Fedora 8

OpenSuSE

Gentoo