•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the Windows Servers and IIS section within the Tech Talk category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 423,995 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 4,133 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our Windows Servers and IIS advertiser: Programming Forums
Views: 42236 | Replies: 109
 |
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 0
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
IIS does not as far as i can remember (I haven’t played with newer version)
Support multiple virtual DOMAINS...
Apache does
Do what I do, Win 2000 and 2003 servers are over rated.
Use a simple windows 2000 pro OS or Windows XP Pro, install apache for windows along with PHP and MySQL.
You'll never regret it, it's by far the simplest and easiest and most manageable setup you can ever use.
Keep in mind I’m not a Microsoft fan, i would choose Linux over windows any day, but the fact remain for people who don’t have the time to learn and manage the Linux OS and are more familiar with windows, do it my way.
Support multiple virtual DOMAINS...
Apache does
Do what I do, Win 2000 and 2003 servers are over rated.
Use a simple windows 2000 pro OS or Windows XP Pro, install apache for windows along with PHP and MySQL.
You'll never regret it, it's by far the simplest and easiest and most manageable setup you can ever use.
Keep in mind I’m not a Microsoft fan, i would choose Linux over windows any day, but the fact remain for people who don’t have the time to learn and manage the Linux OS and are more familiar with windows, do it my way.
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 778
Reputation:
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 20
The Geek Father
If your going to run a windows server, do it right, run Windows Server 2003 or dont use a windows server and switch to some vairent of nix 
Firefox: no, its not the end all solution, it has its own issues and in time it will be just as insecure as IE, when its hit Firefox 6, if it makes it that far. Oh, and AOL pays for it, incase you didn't know.
Microsoft & Windows: If you hate it so much, move to linux, or bsd, or anything else, stop complaning and move on.
Good starting places: Gentoo Novell SUSE Fedora Core Apple
Microsoft & Windows: If you hate it so much, move to linux, or bsd, or anything else, stop complaning and move on.
Good starting places: Gentoo Novell SUSE Fedora Core Apple
•
•
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 862
Reputation:
Rep Power: 12
Solved Threads: 16
The C# Man, Myth, Legend
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by recsx
IIS does not as far as i can remember (I haven’t played with newer version)
Support multiple virtual DOMAINS...
IIS Supports "host headers", which are virtual domains. However, in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro, IIS is limited to one domain. In Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003, IIS has an unlimited amount of domains, and supports virtual hosts - I use that everyday.
Eariler, I said IIS performed better than linux-based web servers, and here is the independant research to prove it.
Why does IIS6 perform so well? Well, in Windows Server 2003 the http serving is moved to kernel level, removing all the overhead usually found in a server application running in the userspace.
-Ryan Hoffman
ASP.NET Specialist / Webmaster, Extended64.com.
Please do not email or PM me with support questions. Please direct them to the forums instead.
ASP.NET Specialist / Webmaster, Extended64.com.
Please do not email or PM me with support questions. Please direct them to the forums instead.
•
•
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,514
Reputation:
Rep Power: 10
Solved Threads: 49
Hello,
I run with Linux servers, unless I need something that has to run on the side with Windoze, such as a database or other application.
I have to ask, if IIS is so damn good, how come it installs to C: (the system volume), and doesn't offer me a choice to go to D: or E: ? Yes, I know in the properties of each site I can go in there and tell them to point the source at another location, but why won't it let me install somewhere else? Reminds me of the days of seeing print queues on the main system partition, and/or Usenet stores on SYS:
On Linux / Apache, I just have to change DocumentRoot and tell it what partition to go look for. 25 seconds in a text editor. Simple, quick, easy.
I have not installed Novell in a while. Might just crack out the disks and see if they got it right.
The C: is strictly for OS system files. I do not want anything else stored there. Yet, I see this damn folder called INETPUB there. I have done the install several times, and have not found a way to change this to D:\INETPUB.
In the end, it is going to come down to the "best tool for the best job." So far, for what I have done, Linux remains my favorite.
Christian
I run with Linux servers, unless I need something that has to run on the side with Windoze, such as a database or other application.
I have to ask, if IIS is so damn good, how come it installs to C: (the system volume), and doesn't offer me a choice to go to D: or E: ? Yes, I know in the properties of each site I can go in there and tell them to point the source at another location, but why won't it let me install somewhere else? Reminds me of the days of seeing print queues on the main system partition, and/or Usenet stores on SYS:
On Linux / Apache, I just have to change DocumentRoot and tell it what partition to go look for. 25 seconds in a text editor. Simple, quick, easy.
I have not installed Novell in a while. Might just crack out the disks and see if they got it right.
The C: is strictly for OS system files. I do not want anything else stored there. Yet, I see this damn folder called INETPUB there. I have done the install several times, and have not found a way to change this to D:\INETPUB.
In the end, it is going to come down to the "best tool for the best job." So far, for what I have done, Linux remains my favorite.
Christian
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2
Reputation:
Rep Power: 0
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
Re: What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server? •
•
•
•
Originally Posted by kc0arf
Hello,
I run with Linux servers, unless I need something that has to run on the side with Windoze, such as a database or other application.
I have to ask, if IIS is so damn good, how come it installs to C: (the system volume), and doesn't offer me a choice to go to D: or E: ? Yes, I know in the properties of each site I can go in there and tell them to point the source at another location, but why won't it let me install somewhere else? Reminds me of the days of seeing print queues on the main system partition, and/or Usenet stores on SYS:
On Linux / Apache, I just have to change DocumentRoot and tell it what partition to go look for. 25 seconds in a text editor. Simple, quick, easy.
I have not installed Novell in a while. Might just crack out the disks and see if they got it right.
The C: is strictly for OS system files. I do not want anything else stored there. Yet, I see this damn folder called INETPUB there. I have done the install several times, and have not found a way to change this to D:\INETPUB.
In the end, it is going to come down to the "best tool for the best job." So far, for what I have done, Linux remains my favorite.
Christian
I myself lean towards Christan's belief’s.
I any day if i found myself having to use a full server OS like 2000 or 2003, i would lean towards the Linux OS.
Microshit and Windoze with their crapy Lettered drive scheme sucks the bag.
Run a Server OS and find yourself one day having to add more drive space and have fun with those dam drive letters, in Linux it’s as simple as Christian says, a few seconds in an editor and viola you can change the volume to which your Domain’s or any files will be used on, hey you can even span multiple drives as one.
Now that’s flexibility. :mrgreen:
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 778
Reputation:
Rep Power: 7
Solved Threads: 20
The Geek Father
You know you dont actually need to use the drive lettering scheme if you want, not to mention it supports A-ZZ (thats alot of drives
)
Plus most of the time these days you raid large drives togeter with Raid1 so windows only sees one peice of hardware either.
Depenending on what its go to do is depandant on waht we run.
We have a few linux boxes for some small stuff most of the bigger stuff is windows.
)Plus most of the time these days you raid large drives togeter with Raid1 so windows only sees one peice of hardware either.
Depenending on what its go to do is depandant on waht we run.
We have a few linux boxes for some small stuff
most of the bigger stuff is windows. Firefox: no, its not the end all solution, it has its own issues and in time it will be just as insecure as IE, when its hit Firefox 6, if it makes it that far. Oh, and AOL pays for it, incase you didn't know.
Microsoft & Windows: If you hate it so much, move to linux, or bsd, or anything else, stop complaning and move on.
Good starting places: Gentoo Novell SUSE Fedora Core Apple
Microsoft & Windows: If you hate it so much, move to linux, or bsd, or anything else, stop complaning and move on.
Good starting places: Gentoo Novell SUSE Fedora Core Apple
•
•
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 732
Reputation:
Rep Power: 6
Solved Threads: 31
Master Poster
From an earlier post on this topic about the uptime of the computers, you have to also consider not only the OS running, but the hardware itself and who's operating it. How many of us here could keep a Windows machine running for a week straight without a problem? Now take the same machine and give it to your mom. Has that uptime drastically decreased?
I haven't used Novell for quite some time, before Windows 2k ever came around. It was quite stable, no questions about that, but I found its security rather simple. I don't know, maybe it was the way our admin had it setup, but getting around things to do whatever you wanted wasn't very difficult. I'm sure they've fixed the holes since then.
I've got nothing against Linux really, except that it has a weak user interface. But I've had little experience with linux and only used gnome and KDE. (i prefer kde) So on this subject, my vote goes to Windows for running a server.
I haven't used Novell for quite some time, before Windows 2k ever came around. It was quite stable, no questions about that, but I found its security rather simple. I don't know, maybe it was the way our admin had it setup, but getting around things to do whatever you wanted wasn't very difficult. I'm sure they've fixed the holes since then.
I've got nothing against Linux really, except that it has a weak user interface. But I've had little experience with linux and only used gnome and KDE. (i prefer kde) So on this subject, my vote goes to Windows for running a server.
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
For people who know what they're doing, a Linux-based server is a superior solution because it is infinitely more customizable than any Windows server you can set up.
For instance, a friend of mine who owns a network gaming center has asked me to configure a Slackware Linux-based Neverwinter Nights server for him. The Linux server can take 2-3 times as much load as a Win 2K/2003 server on the exact same hardware, and the OS is free to boot.
One of the reasons going for Slackware is that it functions nicely even without GUI tools which tend to get in the way of experienced sysadmins and are total memory hogs. The server I set up is running pure text mode, and I can very quickly configure just about every single aspect of it over the Internet, even over a dialup line, and it still remains incredibly secure as I can easily set which few essential daemons to run (basically just sshd and the neverwinter nights server). This is very much unlike windows where you end up being forced to run a lot of useless (or marginally useful) services in the background.
The one downside is a fairly steep learning curve since CLI (command-line interface) tools tend to require more study to master, but aside from that, most everything else is a plus.
For instance, a friend of mine who owns a network gaming center has asked me to configure a Slackware Linux-based Neverwinter Nights server for him. The Linux server can take 2-3 times as much load as a Win 2K/2003 server on the exact same hardware, and the OS is free to boot.
One of the reasons going for Slackware is that it functions nicely even without GUI tools which tend to get in the way of experienced sysadmins and are total memory hogs. The server I set up is running pure text mode, and I can very quickly configure just about every single aspect of it over the Internet, even over a dialup line, and it still remains incredibly secure as I can easily set which few essential daemons to run (basically just sshd and the neverwinter nights server). This is very much unlike windows where you end up being forced to run a lot of useless (or marginally useful) services in the background.
The one downside is a fairly steep learning curve since CLI (command-line interface) tools tend to require more study to master, but aside from that, most everything else is a plus.
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10
Reputation:
Rep Power: 5
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Tekmaven™
Eariler, I said IIS performed better than linux-based web servers, and here is the independant research to prove it.
•
•
•
•
Why does IIS6 perform so well? Well, in Windows Server 2003 the http serving is moved to kernel level, removing all the overhead usually found in a server application running in the userspace.
A kernel-based http server potentially increases the number of security holes (and they can be severe) as well as potentially lowering robustness, so it's very hard to get right.
If IIS executes ASP.NET scripts in kernel space along with the server itself, this could lead to the same or worse kinds of security horrors that we saw with ActiveX and BHOs (Browser Helper Objects). We all know how Microsoft 'fixed' those swiss cheese aspects of its browser architecture: block all sites by default and ask the surfer to enable them on a case-to-case basis. :cheesy:
|
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Windows Servers and IIS Marketplace
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Linear Mode
•
•
•
•
apple browser cellphone computer core crack dell desktop development enterprise fedora gentoo google gpl hardware ibm install internet kernel linux mac microsoft mmorpg mobile network news novell office open open source openoffice operating os photo pirate red hat security server software source sun suse system ubuntu unix upgrade vista web windows xp
- Previous Thread: life is full of work
- Next Thread: Cannot get to Website from within the company
