Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Yeah, with those specs it doesn't matter much which distribution you pick. Or if it does matter, you should probably upgrade your hardware a bit (because it's a server, it shouldn't be at limit).
Ubuntu makes it fairly easy to get started, Fedora too, RedHat (commercial distributions) would suite you if you want to pay for it, but if you really want to strip it down, either create a LFS system or try Slackware -- that's my personal thought about it, and you might easily find something else that suits you better.
Virtualization is (or at least used to be) media sexy, but what made you pick it up instead of a non-virtualized operating system? I mean, surely you don't need several distributions to do those tasks as one can do them all, and virualization does eat up some resources and limit some things that non-virtualized operating systems don't..
Virtualization is (or at least used to be) media sexy, but what made you pick it up instead of a non-virtualized operating system? I mean, surely you don't need several distributions to do those tasks as one can do them all, and virualization does eat up some resources and limit some things that non-virtualized operating systems don't..
Well I am thinking that running my home server and desktop system separate it can be managed properly but maybe that is something which is not applicable/suitable in my home situation.
Therefore I am asking here what people think about this with their linux experience. At the moment i have the choice to go for virtualization or not...
I am still thinking if it is wise to install a stripped down linux system where I install virtualbox (or KVM) on it and 2 guests machines.
I would personally make the server and your personal pc two physically different machines; you're right about keeping desktop and server away from each other, and if you can't afford more than one machine, then virtualization might make sense. But on the other hand a mail server and a (home) web server don't necessarily require as much horsepower as your desktop pc does (at least if you like to play games or do other "intensive" things), so I think you could get decent hardware for the server without paying too much. Of course it's the better if the server hardware is capable of dealing with whatever you throw at it, but again if you run two virtual operating systems side by side, the server won't get the fullest out of your hardware either. It's a little tricky situation, but luckily it's just a home server so you can make a decicion now and change that later if you need with a big commercial-use server the thing would not be that..
Having a stripped-down system has some benefits, but on the other hand you'll still need to take care about the security things (not just in the virtual environments), so a not-so-stripped-down system could make that easier. Well, it depends, but I'd maybe go for something like Slackware in this case, at least if it's a 32-bit system. What I would strip down is the graphical environment: change KDE or Gnome to a lot lighter desktop environment (if you're going to do your work inside the virtual machines, you don't need the bells and whistles behind them).
Go ahead with your virtualization plans if you find you get some use out of them, and if nothing else, you'll get experience. In your situation it's not the worst choice anyway
I have been experimenting with home servers for some time now. I also have two self managed dedicated commercial servers. I have found that CentOS with selinux active the best choice. I have a tutorial that is based on CentOS 4 located at linuxagora.com/vbforum in the howto section if you would like to look at it. I probably need to update the links. I can send you a link to my currently running home server if you would like to test it for speed, etc.
With CentOS virtualization with Xen is available and well documented on their site and at Redhat. They just released a LiveCD version of the recently released CentOS 5.2. You can check out their website at:
install another distribution of Linux as a Virtual Machine in Fedora
Someone plese help me on this question:
You must do some research, and discover how to install another distribution of Linux as a Virtual Machine in Fedora. You may use the distro and virtualization software of your choice. Once your research is complete, carry out the procedure to accomplish the task.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.