Debian has less complexityand is very stable. It has a nice wiki and a Debian system can run for a few years on unattended upgrades.
Edit: this post was originally about cost savings but that is not really a useful metric
Debian has less complexityand is very stable. It has a nice wiki and a Debian system can run for a few years on unattended upgrades.
Edit: this post was originally about cost savings but that is not really a useful metric
from which OS? Ubuntu? Rocky/RHEL? Windows Server?
Mostly Ubuntu. Comes with a ton of extras installed which add storage and ram usage along with additional complexity.
Ubuntu server has a minimal server installation option.
Yeah the more I think about the sillier this post is.
Compared to Arch Linux then yeah you’ll save a ton of money almost guaranteed. But something like Windows? Good luck trying to calculate that.
I wouldn’t even deploy Arch in production as its not designed to be stable.
I mean you’d have to be pretty insane to use Arch on an actual server.
That or a masochist.
I don’t really subscribe to Arch or Debian being better or worse than each other. I encounter issues just as frequently on both. Maybe it’s a little harder to do things in Debian because the repositories don’t update as often but the AUR is where a lot of important stuff is and that’s a pain to deal with too.
Either way it’s better than using Windows.