this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
86 points (88.4% liked)

Selfhosted

59923 readers
510 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am trying to use my old laptops for self-hosting. One has a 6th gen Intel Core i3 (4GB ram), the other has an 11th gen Intel Core i5 (8GB ram). I have previously tried both ubuntu server and desktop but couldn't get it to work well. For the former I found it difficult to remote ssh and the latter I had difficulty installing Docker containers. (I'm not very good with the command line)

I would like to find an OS that is easier to setup with less of a neccesity for the command line (I would still like to learn how to use it though, I don't want to get rid of it entirely!). I've heard of CasaOS, is that a good option? It seems quite easy to use. What about other alternatives?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I mean if that’s what you think, I can tell you don’t work in the industry. Desktop editions generally have more than just a “prepackaged GUI” on top of a server edition.

  • Server editions generally have text based installers. This might not seem like a big deal, until you’re installing on a system that doesn’t have any graphics, just a serial console.
  • They almost always have an easy way to do headless and network installations.
  • They sometimes have additional security modules, like SELinux, different kernel boot parameters, or even different kernel versions. (Although this is less common nowadays.)
  • They’re also missing an audio server (different than a GUI), and usually a print server.
  • They can often be GBs lighter, which makes a difference when you’re installing on virtual machines with limited disk space.
  • They sometimes use different file systems by default (like Fedora used to).
  • They might create different swap setups.
  • They usually have very different network defaults. Like, desktop editions usually have a firewall, whereas server editions usually don’t (or it’s not enabled by default).
  • Server editions often include terminal tools that desktop editions don’t.
  • They’ll sometimes have a different network manager (Ubuntu Server uses systemd-networkd while Ubuntu Desktop uses Network-Manager).
  • Server editions almost never come with userland file mounting tools like gvfs.
  • Sometimes (like in Fedora) a server edition will come with remote management solutions like Cockpit.
  • The home directory skeletons will be vastly different on a server vs a desktop.

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are plenty more I could find.

Now, since you seem like you might accuse me of it, note that I did not say that a server edition and a desktop edition can’t be swapped back and forth by installing and removing packages and changing a bunch of config. They can. But, it’s not “just” some GUI stuff that makes a desktop edition, and it’s not “just” the lack of a GUI that makes a server edition. They are usually quite different.

Source: I’ve been a professional Linux server administrator for 16 years. But don’t take my word for it. Try it yourself. Install Ubuntu server, then run sudo apt install ubuntu-desktop and see if it’s exactly the same as installing Ubuntu Desktop.