Ah well, it's rather a "how i set up a small web server for fiddling around with stuff" not so much a professional article about security. Sorry, but the first page is like "mhh, yeah, geeks hate MS, let's use the other choices" under the hood.
Why? Because it doesn't really mention a technical choice against MS.
Don't get me wrong i would never ever use Windows Server but when i'd write such an article i'd have to find at least a few technical pros and cons for the choices i preset.
"Uhhh, the internet is more like a unixy thing" doesn't cut it.
This goes on with the choice for Ubuntu Server. Why? Is it an article about "safe and secure web server" or about "how does my grandma set up a server"?
There are much more choices in terms of reliability and proven track record like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, RHEL/CentOS. The choice was made because it's easier to set up and apparently the author is too lazy to _really_ do his homework.
In the end, i'd say if the articles title would be "beginners guide how to setup a server" i wouldn't comlain..
As a professional developer and amateur sysadmin, I have to say Ubuntu is a great choice, and I will never use CentOS again. The main reason being how updated packages are in Ubuntu, and outdated in CentOS. I don't know about the other options.
Quick (non-security) updates means less testing and more potential bugs and security problems. This is fine for a dev workstation, but less fine for a production server. Personally I use Debian on my servers since it gives me a solid base I can trust and then I manually install the few pieces that I need more up to date versions of.
In my case that's Node.js, Redis, nginx and occasionally python 2.7, and of those I'd be installing Redis (I often run beta releases) and nginx (want to compile in my own modules) by hand on Ubuntu as well. Sure this is slightly more work, but it gives me more control and I feel a more stable server environment.
Quick updates also decrease the likelyhood that there will come a point in time when you say "damn, we really need the new version of XYZ, let's just compile it and install it ourselves...", which involves problems of its own: you now have to monitor security updates for those system components yourself, rather than simply running the package manager to pick up security updates. It's a tradeoff, and I think Ubuntu handles it fairly well: you can either get the regularly updated ones, or the long term releases.
I would much more care for timely security updates.
Servers are the parts where you don't need the latest software, in my opinion.
Not if it comes for less stability or security.
In the best case i have a very secure default installation, install the software i need from updated repositories,
let the server update itself (or let it remind me of updates) and be gone with touching the shell ever again.
The goal is to have the server running safe and secure for years and not to have the latest pre-beta release versions of NoSQL-engine XYZ "just because".
Personally on my Desktop i have been a Debian guy (and after that Ubuntu), but it all depends on the requirements.
My personal view:
- my personal server runs Debian but i would place ubuntu a second for a one-person thing with no personal data on it. I know it runs a stable and updated OS and it just runs and runs and runs. You need a newer software version? You can selectively take some from testing or even unstable if you have to. You still get timely updates and live in an eco-system that is largely seen as proven, stable, excellent. Ubuntu (afaik) only get's Debian testing packages anyway, but still needs to patch them or tweak them. Or you get non-upstream packages. Also my experience is that Debians configuration is quite secure by default. Whereas Ubuntu tries to make it easy for you but also more open to security flaws.
- for an enterprise i can totally see why many choose RHEL (because of support, fast security updates and great in-house know-how. Do you know how many kernel developers are employed by Ubuntu? You don't want to know.. I give a lot of Kudos to RedHat for being such an open and contributing company.)
- for a start-up i can totally see how FreeBSD might fit as an internet-facing frontend. It's a stable and fast workhorse, and you'll end up compiling, configuring, installing the core components of your system all the time anyway.
Talking about it i feel a bit sad of not mentioning Solaris anymore. Solaris "was" awesome.
This goes on with the choice for Ubuntu Server. Why? Is it an article about "safe and secure web server" or about "how does my grandma set up a server"? There are much more choices in terms of reliability and proven track record like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, RHEL/CentOS. The choice was made because it's easier to set up and apparently the author is too lazy to _really_ do his homework.
In the end, i'd say if the articles title would be "beginners guide how to setup a server" i wouldn't comlain..