Best O/S for a server out of these three...

[Force Flow]

I want to try to set up a server when I get some free time. Specifically to set up a site with forums (thus needing one to fool with PHP and MySQL). Which one would run the best and be the most secure with Norton firewall, Sygate, and NAV corp ed. running?

[glc]

None of the above. Use Linux.

[Mac Medic]

Xp pro for uptime and stability. Linux is over-rated just cos it's free.

[Force Flow]

Never used Linux before. Do you have a link to it?

[mairving]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002 Xp pro for uptime and stability. Linux is over-rated just cos it's free.

Just curious if this is based on personal experience or something that someone told you.

Linux is a great, secure well developed OS that just happens to be free. Windows 98 and XP don't have server versions. You can cheat and run IIs or PWS but you are better off with something else.

[Statica]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002 Xp pro for uptime and stability. Linux is over-rated just cos it's free.

You've actually benchmarked (or even used) XP Pro as a server vs Linux? I'd love to see the results.

---

I'd also like to see any Windows server work with a SQL server (especially MySQL) as well as a Linux.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Guys, let us not turn this into another Xp v Linux fight. It is sufficient to say that this is not an area where Linux is in second place, or experimental or has to try harder. This is precisely the application (presumably webserver since he is going to set up forums) where Linux is the best and has by far the largest market share (in excess of 70% the last I looked.) If it couldn't do the job, it wouldn't have that market share. The people who use Linux as a webserver OS are by and large professionals. They can't afford anything that doesn't work.

CH

[Mac Medic]

Oh boy, I should have been more specific. I didn't say Linux was a bad choice for a server, I said it is over rated, which it is. Look through some of the threads here and apparently Linux can do no wrong, while windows is the epitome of evil. We all know this isn't true and Linux is not as friendly as people make out. I know this as I use and have used a number of distro's. Currently Susu & Redhat. But the fact is, Linux is overrated by it's users. It is apparently more stable, secure and powerful than windows, which of course it isn't. As for ease of use, well for this example lets compare IIS to Apache for the "Average" user. Which would be easier?.. For an experienced user, Linux is a good choise, but NO better than a windows alternative. I'm not gonna slam linux as I like it, but the way Linux users talk about it you'd think it was perfect. As for XP Pro as a server, yes i used it for about a year with NO downtime except for updates and NO security problems, even running IIS. Where as my Suse machine has kernel panics quite often. Now I use 2k Server and have NEVER had a failure in 8 months, never.

And Norton Enterprise Edition, to the best of my knowledge won't run on Linux anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Computer Hobbyist]

As to Norton Enterprise Edition, I run it on my office NT Network. Talk about some overrated software. That is another topic for another time.

CH

[Force Flow]

It's Norton Anti-Virus Corperate edition 7.6 and Norton Personal Firewall 4.0

Okay here's the question of the day: Which version of linux would be easy to learn and where could I get it? Also, which version would be best for a server?

Remember now, I'm primarily a Windows user (but do have a little experience in the Mac O/S's).

[Mac Medic]

Any Linux Distro will work fine, I would recomend redhat 8.0, it's pricey but worth it, but pretty much any distro will do and most can be downloaded for free. Suse and Mandrake make a good product. Neither of your norton products will work but there's a firewall in Linux, as for AV, good luck. And dont forget to patch the OS. It's not as secure as people like to think.

edit: I recommended 8.0 Advance Server, but I take that back for a 1st time linux user.

If you don't want to pay retail, or download it, ask someone who has it to burn you a disk and send it to you.

[Force Flow]

Thanks, OEM Guy

Now, as for links to linux pages... do you happen to have any?

[Mac Medic]

www.redhat.com
www.suse.de
www.mandrake.com
www.knoppix.com or org?

knoppix is a distro that runs off a cd
without the need to install. A good way
to see if you like linux.

[Force Flow]

Thanks again; I'll check them out.

[edit]: From what I've just glanced at, Redhat seems to be more geared towards acting as a server and mandrade more like a desktop PC O/S. Am I correct in this assumption?

[mairving]

Originally posted by force_flow2002 Thanks again; I'll check them out. [edit]: From what I've just glanced at, Redhat seems to be more geared towards acting as a server and mandrade more like a desktop PC O/S. Am I correct in this assumption?

Not really. They are quite similar. Mandrake is probably better looking but they can both serve the same purpose. Linux Iso is a good place to download different versions on Linux. They are all in .iso format so that you can burn them to a CD that will be bootable.

[homer15]

from experience, i'd say windows 2000. server if you can get it, but pro will work for webservicing etc. linux is also good, too, but if you want to get something done quick, go with windows. learning linux is like learning spanish. it's not hard once you get the hang of it, but you've still got to get used to new things.

[Force Flow]

I had tried putting 2000 server on my multiboot, but it didn't like it.

Learning Linux is like learning Spanish, huh? Then that doesn't sound too bad.

[mairving]

Originally posted by force_flow2002 Learning Linux is like learning Spanish, huh? Then that doesn't sound too bad.

That all depends upon what country you came from.

I would say that it is more like driving a beat up wreck (Linux) that has a 500HP engine instead of a Ferrari (Windows) with a .5HP engine.

[Statica]

I guess I should stop from trying to get people to consider an overall secure and FAST OS for SERVING DATA. We're talking about a server here guys, where it does matter if there is a hack and it does matter if there is an unplugged exploit and it does matter if there are random BSODs because it is SERVING DATA. This is not your average run of the mill computer that just needs a reboot if a game stops running.

If the reasons as not to use Linux in a server is that its too hard, then perhaps paying someone else a certain amount of $ per month for hosting your data is a better idea. You do not use Linux because its the cool thing to do, and you do not use Linux simply because it is true; it is recommended because it can take more abuse and yet can give you great performance for SERVING DATA. I will not dispute that Windows is a great gaming OS (because all the games are for it) or that its a great desktop OS (because you like it), but its a lot easier to verify the performance of a server in security and in performance, because they can be kept side by side and asked to do the same thing.

Windows 2000 pro is a fine OS, but if the argument was that Win2K can SERVE better than Linux then it might be worth looking into.

Again, I will not get into the Linux vs Windows debate, because it is tired, and because if you can get Windows to be a better (in security, performance, stability, support, ease of configuration ... ) SERVER than Linux then I would consider you a genius from whom I would like to learn 'cos I personally dont get that performance or that stability. and finally, because I dont want this to be considered thread crapping - but in the meantime, I would also suggest in looking into what the shortcomings are, if any, in using a Windows for your server (the fact that you included Windows 98 in your options is why I said my view about Linux).; and also look into comparisons between NT and Linux/UNIX hosting that are available on commercial hosts (that will give u a good idea as well). We have in fact rules on threadcrapping , that I forgot, not because I wanted to shove some misguided philosophical attitude at you .. but to give you the best option, irrespective of whether it might be hard to learn.

Cheers.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Let us let Force_Flow decide what he wants to do. I suspect that if he has never set up a web server before, the project will be a learning experience regardless of what operating system he picks.

Force_Flow, might I suggest that you do what most folks don't do in this debate, decide what it is you want to do, research the full range of application software available, findout which will do the best job and then decide which is the appropriate OS.

Deciding the OS first is kinda like putting the cart before the horse. I think you will find that Linux will still prove a winner, since the most cost effective web applications are written for Linux, but I might be wrong. At least the discussion will move from the same old Linux v. Windows debate to something more useful.

CH

[Force Flow]

Hey, I'm always open to trying something new.

Where I work, there is a server running 2000 server. It is quite the holey server. They had to install hardware and software firewalls to take care of the majority of the problems.

As long as Linux is a GUI, it shouldn't be too bad.

Next question: Which version is the most complete?

[Mac Medic]

Redhat advanced server is probably the most complete but way overkill for you, unless you can get a free copy. Redhat 8 pro is real good, but all mainstream distro's, ie Suse, Mandrake, include everything you need for a web server. So get a free copy of either, do a server option install and we'll see ya back here with all your questions.

[Force Flow]

Okie dokie! Thanks, OEM Guy!