0

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 admin@dcdj.net.

Nick

42
Contributors
109
Replies
112
Views
14 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by DimaYasny
0

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.

0

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.

0

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

0

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....

0

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

0

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

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

0

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.

0

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.

0

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

0

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.

0

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:

0

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)

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

Response: Not all, but some.

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.

Response: First of all, its a study. A survey is just a bunch of questions asked to some people. Secondly, you have no idea who funded it - the Apache Foundation might have, and who cares who funds it. The important part is bugs don't lie. They are there, or not - and they are there more frequently for apache.

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.

Response: For the most part, you are right - but you have to think who would need a GUI. The original thread starter, a newbie would benefit from Window's ease of use.

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_.

Response: You can beat free all day. If your product is better free is beaten. Thats why we don't run Linux on every PC.

And to have access to the source also gives opportunities to alter the OS at your whim.. a thing that is.. IMPOSSIBLE with windows.

Response: You don't need this with Windows. Microsoft provides complete lists of Windows API's and programming information. IF you don't like windows, write a program and make it work differently.

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

Response: Although based on Unix, FreeBSD is NOT linux. You need to keep in mind that Uptime is not a good number to look at when we are talking about stabilty. Servers do not run many applications at once (specificly, webservers - which just do webserving). With one Application open - if its coded properly, Windows 2.0 can reach an uptime of years (providing it isn't shut off).

0

Response: For the most part, I was talking about the needs and requirements that I have when choosing an OS, and I think that was pretty clear in my argumentation.

Also, the topic was using Linux as a server, and not as a workstation, which most of your arguments seems to be based on.

FreeBSD, is as I stated in earlier posts not Linux, but are also released under an Open Source license. It is, however a very nice os, I tend to use OpenBSD, which is a fork that has security as #1 priority.

Uptime is a good number to look at when we are talking stability. Provided the server also meets with the needs the task it has. I'm not that confident win2.0 would have years of uptime and at the same time performing as an FreeBSD webserver.

You know, there is a reason hotmail was run with a backend of FreeBSD and solaris machines. Last I heard the mailservers serving hotmail was run with FreeBSD, with a frontend of win2000 machines.

ONTOPIC: The choice of OS is purely a matter of what you want the server to do, and what skills you are willing to learn (provided you do not have them already). Some things *NIX do better than windows, and vice versa. For me, when I entered the world of *NIX, I got a whole new understanding of OS structure and learned a whole lot. Coming from a windows-world that pretty much shut me out of grasping the concept behind it all, this was a break for me, and I'll never use windows for my own servers again. (Given that I dont need it for special purposes 8) )

Thats my 2 cents, and I'll end my flaming here.

0

I don't have time for a full reply now, but I will just respond to one of your points that ticked me off the most.

You know, there is a reason hotmail was run with a backend of FreeBSD and solaris machines. Last I heard the mailservers serving hotmail was run with FreeBSD, with a frontend of win2000 machines.

Response: Maybe a few years ago. Since then, Microsoft has fully switched over to a Windows backend. The reason for the old FreeBSD backend was in its place is, in case you don't know your computer history, Microsoft didn't originally create Hotmail, it was purchased. Converting Hotmail over to the newer system wasn't a huge priority - because it worked. When the amount members grew, and Microsoft wanted to impliment .NET features, it was migrated.

Never use the Hotmail excuse when trying to support Nix. It is utterly idiotic, and proves nothing.

0

I want to take this a step down.

Linux Servers will be around forever, and so will Windows Servers.

People will support their favorite to the death; which has been proven here.

This waste of time / resources just goes to show you how good Windows Servers and Linux Servers really are.

0

It's Nick,
I have been on vacation for the past week which did not give we an internet connection. I am currently in CT on my HP Palvilion ZE 5155. I do have a Gateway desktop with a 120 Gig Harddrive. I purchased this computer and it costed $3,000.00. I currently own dcdj.net and dcwdservices.com. I want to host dcwdservices.com and dcdj.net on the Gateway. I also want to start a hosting service and I need server software giving unlimited accounts. If you could please reply to me with what you think, I would appreciate it. My email is admin@dcdj.net. Hope to hear from you. Please email me, do not post.

Thanks,
Nick

0

I do have a Gateway desktop with a 120 Gig Harddrive.

This is what we all thought that you had. Before you said 120 gigs of RAM. That's different than a hard drive.

0

Posters,
This is Nick again. I am so sorry for the confusion in my miswording. I hope that all of you can forgive me for my mistake. I will be overlooking this site for 3 days. But on Wed, I will be leaving for home again to Atlanta. Please post in the three days.

Nick

PS: I will get back home on Friday around noon.

0

I hope that all of you can forgive me for my mistake.

No need to apologize... we're not bitter here.
And don't hold grudges, ... well, usually don't. LOL ;) ;)

0

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.

Tekman,
I am sorry for the confusion, but I do not have a 120 Gig of Ram. I have a 120G hard drive. I am so sorry. Anyway, I currently am running Windows XP Home Edition on my pc. I have a T1 internet connection. I have had Windows 2000 Pro on this computer before and I do know how to use it since I have modified many things in the operating system main folder. Anyway, if you could please continue to post your thoughts, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Nick

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.