Selfhosted

60967 readers

813 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Selfhosting as a Linux newbie - Ubuntu Server LTS or Debian 13? (piefed.social)

submitted 17 hours ago by steel_for_humans@piefed.social to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I use Debian as my daily driver, but I'm still a newbie. I would like to selfhost a few apps, initially on a VPS, but I will probably move to a local PC once I diagnose what is broken with my old computer.

The guides at https://selfhosting.sh/ always recommend Ubuntu Server LTS for newbies, but Ubuntu seems to have bad PR and I already run Debian on my home PC. On one hand, I am a newbie and I guess Ubuntu might be easier to set up and maintain. Though, I don't HOW exactly? On the other hand, if I have Debian on my home PC and on my server, they are the same system, so I'd be learning the same system at two places and with two usage scenarios. But it might be easier to make mistakes on Debian..?

What is your opinion/recommendation?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

A standard install of Ubuntu Server uses more RAM, has longer boot times, and generally just needs more resources to get going. You can strip some of that out, but Debian is that way from the start. Plus, Ubuntu is just Debian with extra shit on top.

Debian is also much longer lived and stable than even Ubuntu LTS releases, so I generally have just found it to be better suited to deployments where I don't want to fuck with it for a long time, besides monthly patching.

[–] Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

@chronicledmonocle @irmadlad The irony is that when Ubuntu was created in '04, one of the first features they worked on (after the initial 4.10 release) was fast booting. Debian at the time used sysvinit and booted pretty slowly. And in addition, long-term support.

Those things eventually made their way into Debian through various means; I haven't messed with Ubuntu in years, but it's very amusing to me to hear that Debian might boot faster than Ubuntu.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Canonical has had a lot of missteps in recent years. Some (like snaps) they still actively are shooting themselves in the foot with.

I just timed my Debian box from cold shut down to ready to go. It was 13 seconds.

My Ubuntu Server? It took 86 seconds to boot on the exact same hardware.