Linux

This is what Debian is for.

A lot of people are saying Debian, because Debian.

Debian. I've literally run Debian stable with uptimes of over a year.

I went Debian without a Desktop for my server. I later installed a desktop for the occasion that I need it. But mostly, I use SSH

Debian.

Debian netinst. The network installable iso is much smaller than the full image as you only download stuff you actually want to install. Ubuntu used to have a mini.iso but sadly they got rid of it AFAIK.

I run Debian

Adding my voice to the Debian choir.

Apart from Debian, I guess Alpine. It's quite popular in containers for its small size. Even Arch will be much bigger in that case because the packages are much less granular and install development libraries and headers for about everything.

• OpenSuse
• Debian
• Alpine

Would be the three I'd choose from atleast.

I like debian

Debian or Ubuntu Server (or something specific to servers purpose, like OMV, etc).

... but ProxMox (a hypervisor, Debian based) doesn't have much overhead & runs on old PCs pretty well. And with that, you can pretty much try any distro (as a full virtual machines, perhaps with dockers within it, or as a lightweight containers that are really resource efficient). Or separate containers for each purpose (for beginners, there are like TurnKey solutions to stuff like NAS, it takes literally a few minutes to set up).

Backups (snapshots) are easy too, and a later migration to a better/next server is basically two clicks away.

Did someone suggested Debian already? If not I would suggest Debian.

Linux is quite lightweight. Pick a distro that doesn't run a lot of stuff by default. OpenBSD only runs sshd exposed to the network, AFAIR. Debian probably does the same. But really, the lightness comes from what isn't running. NixOS, fedora, rocky, alpine are all decent alternatives.

Debian. You can install it headless and do everything from the command line. Or if you need it, install a lightweight desktop like XFCE.

Debian

Probably Debian. It's basically the most used distro, and therefore has many online resources.

• Old software, but very stable.
• No bloat, very clean.
• No custom programs interfering with any configurations etc.
• Support for many server software etc.

If you want an even cleaner OS, where (nearly) everything is under your control and as lightweight as possible, Arch would be for you. There's the bonus of the AUR, but the huge problem of newest, "unstable" software, though I've yet to experience any problem on testing repos, except for the Nvidia drivers. In general, Debian should be enough of lightweightiness and control.

MicroOS has worked well as a server for me. Run everything as a container. Use caddy and portainer for reverse proxy and container manager respectively. Auto updates, immutable, and has been bulletproof for me for awhile now.

You can go for Alpine Linux: https://www.alpinelinux.org/

I'd argue that beyond the distribution itself it's a lot more about what you install that will make the difference. If you can basically stick to the console and connect via ssh you'll have a lot more resources available, both bandwidth (assuming you were planning to see a remote desktop) needed but also disk, CPU and RAM. There are lightweight WM e.g ratpoison but IMHO a server should be headless.

So... yes Debian but IMHO Debian without any desktop, just boot with sshd running, Ethernet cable plugged in and connect remotely.

PS: I'd also check if a RPi could be sufficient. I'm running few RPi4s and RPi Zero with 100Go+ microSDs and that's very small, silent and doesn't consume much energy. I understand it's appealing to upcycle old hardware but in the long run, e.g 1 year running 24/7 might not be worth it.

Debian or Alpine would be perfect. Debian has bigger repos, better hardware compatibility, and maybe a bit more stability. Alpine is scary lightweight and a small ISO download.

You'd probably be better off asking in !selfhost@lemmy.ml (can't remember how to link communities sorry fixed now ) and getting answers from people who run home servers. I was given suggestions for an OS like Proxmox, to run everything in containers.

Ubuntu Server is always a solid choice. If you’re not comfortable without graphics, you could go Lubuntu instead.

Basically anything you could want to put on it is available in either the repos or a Docker image.

I use Debian for one and Arch for another. Debian is probably a better option, but I've had no issues with my arch server. Just use what you're most comfortable with

If definitely go with Alpine, really easy to setup, really light and has a great package manager (apk)

Talos. Make the jump.

what you ask is Debian what you need is FreeBSD

NixOS. Not going to switch away from NixOS for servers probably ever even if I decide to distro-hop on my desktop in the future. It's essentially what "traditional server distro + docker + ansible" can only dream of being. If you don't mind learning a very different system, that is. Also the size of its package repository is only rivaled by AUR ;)

Slackware

Honestly, literally anything with a server image will do.

Debian with minimal install. Ubuntu Server. Arch. Fedora Server. Anything.

Unless you're intending to do something very niche or are using some very specific hardware, you'll have very little difference using any mainstream distro.

If you currently use Linux as a desktop OS, sticking with a server OS from the same distribution or a closely related one will mean that you'll find it much easier to manage than learning something new for marginal benefits.

I use Ubuntu for my desktop, so I stick with Ubuntu Server or Debian for servers. Keeps things simple.

I use arch.
edit: lol while I am new to arch, I guess I kind of expected people to disagree with me. I was under the impression that stock arch is very lightweight? I know there used to be jokes about "I installed Arch" cause it's supposed to be hard. But I installed Arch on my desktop and server recently, I did the manual install on my desktop and the guided install on my server. Both super straight forward. Plus Arch seems to have some of the best documentation across distros. I don't know why it should not be suggested, unless I am missing something.