What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server?

[njwnews]

I currently have a Gateway Desktop with 120 Gig Hard Disk! I was wondering, what server software should I put on this computer. Windows 2000 Server or a Linux Server. The reason I need a server is for my 2 domains. I currently host DCDJ.net with another server and dcwdservices.com is parked. If you could please help me by telling me which software to install, that would be great. By the way, if you think Linux is better, tell me a place where I can put it on a disk and It will boot from the CD disk drive. Thanks. My email is [e-mail].

Nick

[cscgal]

This really depends on your individual needs. Both have their advantages. Do you plan on having a back-end to your website (e.g. running scripts with a database, etc?) If you would like to get into PHP as this site is, I would recommend a linux flavor with the Apache web server. However, if you'd like to get into ASP or ASP.NET I would use IIS with a Windows server.

In addition to that, what other goals do you have for the site that must be taken into consideration? For example, do you plan on using the server to host stuff on your internal network as well? What about e-mail addresses @ yourdomain.com ??

Another important factor to take into consideration is how familiar you are with linux. If you've never used linux before, it will be a bit tough to get started - especially to delve right into running a linux server with Apache. However, it can also be very, very rewarding.

On the other hand, if you just want to put up a static webpage with nothing fancy, it can easily be done with Microsoft's IIS. However, a windows 2000 server operating system is very expensive. Linux, on the other hand, is free.

Linux can be downloaded from a wide variety of places, one of which is www.linuxiso.org - there are many different linux distributions, or flavors, and each one is slightly different targeted at a different audience. I recommend RedHat by far (www.redhat.com) IMHO. However, there are many other threads on this forum debating the best linux distribution. You may wish to do a search and take a look at some of them.

[Tekmaven]

How much money do you have? Windows 2000 Server - which is an old operating system and has been replaced by Windows Server 2003. If you can afford Server 2003, then go for it - its very easy to use, and will do a better job then Linux will ever do (thats in my opinion - but it's a very debated issue).

There are a couple of things we would need to know before you could make a decision:
How fast is its processor?
Your computer can't have 120gb of ram - its limited to 4gb by the x86 architecture. How much ram do you really have?
How big is the hard disk?
What internet connection are you on?
Does your ISP block incoming port 80? (you might need to call them to find out - this question is very important to know before you start)
How computer literate are you? Have you used linux before?

Answer some of those, and we can make a better decision for your specific situation.

[cscgal]

Your computer can't have 120gb of ram - its limited to 2gb by the x86 architecture. How much ram do you really have? How big is the hard disk?

I think he means he has a 120 gig hard drive

[Z28James]

How much money do you have? Windows 2000 Server - which is an old operating system and has been replaced by Windows Server 2003. If you can afford Server 2003, then go for it - its very easy to use, and will do a better job then Linux will ever do (thats in my opinion - but it's a very debated issue).

There are a couple of things we would need to know before you could make a decision: How fast is its processor? Your computer can't have 120gb of ram - its limited to 2gb by the x86 architecture. How much ram do you really have? How big is the hard disk? What internet connection are you on? Does your ISP block incoming port 80? (you might need to call them to find out - this question is very important to know before you start) How computer literate are you? Have you used linux before?

Answer some of those, and we can make a better decision for your specific situation.

if he really has that much ram, newest development sources kernel has support for greater than 2gb of ram :P of course using the development sources may not be a good idea for a server....

[jabberwock486]

i would say linux. for one it has more secuirty and uses less resources than windows. another is cost. linux is free or at most 70 US dollars. a third reason is linux is updated more often. however down sides to linux include u need a good amout of computer know how, not all hardware is supported, and it requires more setup

however i would recomend linux over windows2000 server, mainly due to cost. linux can interface with windows and mac

[samaru]

I currently have a Gateway Desktop with 120 Gs of Ram.

120 Gs of RAM? Whoa, I'd like to see this computer.

[Tekmaven]

i would say linux. for one it has more secuirty

Thats the funniest thing I've ever heard. How secure do you think a linux newbie could make a computer?

Also, if Linux was more mainstream, there would be a lot more security holes found.

[Riker]

linux server is best :D

[Tekmaven]

linux server is best :D

Well, that just shows how much you know about Linux. There is no such thing called "Linux server". Linux itself isn't a server - it runs server software. In fact, Windows can run most of this server software - like PHP and MySQL.

If your new to the web server club, then IIS (that runs on windows) would be much easier and more powerful (this is debated, but I think IIS is better then Apache) then the Linux alternitive.

[cscgal]

I think what riker means is that he feels a linux server is better than a windows server. This is in response to the original question, afterall, as to which server to go with. ;) Just remember everyone has their own opinion LOL

[samaru]

linux server is best :D

Why do you say that? That statement makes me wonder if you know much of anything. Just curious why you'd think it's better.

[Riker]

IMO, *nix is better as a server than windows...I have run a webserver off a freebsd machine, linux machine, and win XP....usually you have better uptime with freebsd or linux...win can have good uptime...just depends on what all you do with it....

:roll:

[cscgal]

Fair enough, Riker. It just seems, based on his post, that njwnews is a newbie and I don't know if he'd fair too well with linux as his first server endeavor. (btw no offense njwnews)

[Tekmaven]

My Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition box hosting PCModKingdom.com has been up for 100 days. I would say thats good uptime.

If your looking for a real hardcore NOS, go for Novell Netware. Current uptime 304 Days, 16 Hours, 32 Minutes, 06 Seconds.

[Riker]

I think IIS is better then Apache

Why is this, if I may ask?

[Tekmaven]

Remember, I'm talking about IIS v6.0, included in Windows Server 2003. This may or not apply to any other IIS version.

Why is IIS better?
Ease of administration, modular use, more compatitility, tighter security, faster thoughput, ability to handle more simultainious connections, more customizable, full GUI management - can be controled through web interface as well, and last but not least, it can do everything that Apache can do and MORE!

I can go on more, but only if you are interested.

[soma]

This is pretty amusing. I dont mean to start a flamewar.. but to state that hardcore uptime is not applicable to *nix is just plain dumb.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

what do we have here.. if not UNIX occupying most of the top 50 spots.. only one IIS.. (running on a freebsd machine?)... at place 34.

But on topic, what os would be better for a newbie.. that depends on so many things. How much time does the admin have learning/confing? What skills does he/she possess atm? For me, id go for linux any day.. and preferably Debian linux.. Linux rocks at smp atm, much more so than the BSD equivalents. But its impossible to say really.. what a person should go for. If money is an issue.. go for Linux/unix (depending on hardware) .. if money is not an issue, and the person wants to have a nifty gui .. go for windows, although even then i wouldnt recommend it.

[Tekmaven]

All hard core punk rock music fans say that once a band gets on MTV they have sold out. They don't care if the band actually has good music - they just won't listen to it.

This is whats happening with Linux and Windows. People think that Windows actually sucks. There are a lot of people that know very little about Linux/Unix/BSD that say "Gooo Linux! Window Sucks" - see Slashdot.

I'm fed up with all these shit Linux distros giving me 20 text editors and 30 GUIs. Whats the problem with Linux - its not the power - or the speed. Its that there is to much of everything. If the GNome Human Interface Project and K Desktop Environment (the two most popular GUIs) joined forces, and produced one GUI for X11, it would be much better. Shit is hard to configure. I hate looking at text files all day - why have a GUI app with a text based config?

I'm not saying Apache sucks - because it is a good HTTP server. But the fact is, those top 50 or however servers aren't really running Apache. Netcraft looks at HTTP headers which, can be modified to say anythign you want. Port80 Software's ServerMask can change the IIS HTTP Header to one that looks just like Apache's.

The sad truth is, that Apache's Server software is just as flawed as everyone elses. A direct quote: The study found 0.53 defects per thousand lines of code for Apache, compared with 0.51 for the commercial software, on average.

And just so you know Windows Server 2003 is much more stable. The things that crash the OS - the background services have all been turned off by default. Only the services you need gets turned on - the opposite of Windows 2000 Server, where everything was "on" by default.

Does Linux have good directory management? I sure don't think so. Active Directory by Microsoft kicks anything Linux has to offer. But, the award for management goes to Novell, with Novell's eDirectory (its very good :D).

Tell me one thing you can do better on Linux, and I'll laugh at you - tell you that you are using the wrong software, and tell you 300 things that Windows is better for. And a note, don't say The GIMP is a good image editor. It sucks.

[soma]

Are you really implying that those servers are really running iis and windows, but are faking it? Thats really really amusing. Thats sort of windows security manegement concept.. security by obscurity.

And the study you referred to.. you can prove just about anything with surveys and so called studys. Just look at the ppl sponsoring the survey, and you'll see _why_ it was made in the first place. Microsoft has repeatedly try to trashtalk the open source community.. and by the looks of that sentence, this is another attempt. But really.. im not implying apache code dont contain errors, im sure it does.. thats why they continue working on the project.

As for the GUI issue.. ill just reply with.. I dont use linux as a workstation.. yet. Mainly because I am dependant on software which is not available on Linux. I do however, use linux as a server. And i surely dont use X, or any more advanced GUI than ncurses. There is no reason to use a GUI on a server, commandline interface to a remote server is all I need.

I'll tell you one thing *NIX is better than windows at. My firewall is a OpenBSD machine. And Windows sure as hell cannot top that code quality. I'd say Linux is more cost-effective in certain appliances. If you know what you are doing, then you simply cannot beat _free_. And to have access to the source also gives opportunities to alter the OS at your whim.. a thing that is.. IMPOSSIBLE with windows.

And I'll finish off with webserving. Linux does it just as well as windows, and free. Stability you say? Linux is stable. FreeBSD, apparently is even more stable.