[BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

It would seem to me that the strengths of a package based distro like
Ubuntu or Red Hat is the speed and ease in which software can be
updated, machines can be rebuilt/deployed. However, if you need certain
non-default command line options enabled with your software, you are
left to hunting down a non-Red Hat RPM or building one on your own. This
I'm not such a big fan of, since I'm not sure which non-Red Hat RPMs can
be safely trusted, and plus it is a PITA. I'm assuming this same sort of
thing applies to Ubuntu Server, but I'm not all that familiar with
apt-get just yet...

The advantage of a source based distribution seems to be that custom
build options are easier, software might be a little more optimized for
your hardware once compiled on the host hardware, but building software
takes time, and if your production server has a high load, it's best not
to build on the server. Some source based distributions support
packages/binaries, but in my experience under FreeBSD they are often
missing.

Of the source distributions, I have to say that while I've given Gentoo
a lot of my time, I prefer FreeBSD. I have been debating the possibility
of migrating from FreeBSD to Linux on my server, but I really can't come
up with a good justification.

Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why? What are
your general recommendations these days?

--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug