Debian has less complexityand is very stable. It has a nice wiki and a Debian system can run for a few years on unattended upgrades.

Edit: this post was originally about cost savings but that is not really a useful metric

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      16·
      9 months ago

      The money saved on RAM, if any, is going to be insignificant compared to factors like licensing or paying staff with Linux skills.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      9·
      9 months ago

      Computing resource usage of your OS should be indistinguishable from $0 almost everywhere.

    • e_t_@kbin.pithyphrase.net
      3·
      9 months ago

      OK, and compared to what? “Less” is a comparison, but you didn’t specify what you’re comparing Debian to.
      Out-of-the-box RAM usage is a pretty specious metric because you’re not installing Debian (or any other OS) just to have sit there in its out-of-the-box condition. Do you think a Debian server running Apache with 1000 vhosts will use less RAM than a RHEL server running nginx with 10 vhosts?

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Debian uses like 200MBs of ram for a basic fresh install. That’s negligible.

      Unless you’re deploying 500 virtual machines on a single server, that all run a single simple basic task the base ram usage of the OS shouldn’t even be a factor.

      • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
        1·
        9 months ago

        I think this is a fairly common use case. Maybe not the most common, but I’ve definitely seen this at multiple shops.

        Density of RAM on hosts is often a limiting factor for scaling. Not every app is CPU hungry. Some just need to be available, and running a whole is for isolation is the way it’s done in a lot of shops.