What's better? Windows 2000 Server or Linux Server? - Page 2

Question

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

njwnews 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 1 · 2003-07-09T02:57:53+00:00

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.

Tekman,
Thank you for your post. I never new that Hotmail ever did change servers. Continue to post and thanks for your support!!!

njwnews 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 2 · 2003-07-09T03:00:22+00:00

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.

Tekmaven,
thank you for your interesting post. I knew this information that you posted before. Thank you for your thought in helping me, but next time, could you post something that is somewhat on to the question?

Thanks,
Nick

BOFH 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 3 · 2003-08-03T08:14:13+00:00

Get Windows 2000, and don't fuck around with "many things in the operating system main folder", because you're just going to break it. If you ran Linux and did that, you could be waving bye-bye to your entire HDD, let alone your install of Linux.

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 4 · 2003-08-03T10:43:42+00:00

I completely agree. If I mess up a setting in Linux, I find that my whole Operating System may not be able to boot, with no way of fixing it. In Windows, each setting is fixable - and a 5 letter string doesn't have the potential of crashing your PC.

njwnews 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 5 · 2003-08-04T18:20:34+00:00

Hey,
I have been trying to remember your website address since my computer crashed and I lost my favorites. Anyways, I installed Linux Redhat 7.3. Redhat 8 and 9 didn't work, it just woden't boot. I also tried Mandrake 9.1, same thing. I guess older versions only work on my Gateway. I did find out hardware information that you might be interested in:

Gateway Select
Moniter: Gateway EV700
HardDrive: 20 G
Processor: AMD Athlon 3
Video Card: NVIDIA 2
Sound Card: N/A
USB Ports: 3
Printer Ports: 1
Mouse/Keyboard Ports: 2
Modem: 2 Slots
Ethernet: 1 Fast Access Slot
Extra:
Mic/Speaker/and 2 headphone slots
2 CD Drives - DVD, CD Rom, and CDRW
1 Floppy Regular Size

Dani 4,084 The Queen of DaniWeb Administrator Featured Poster Premium Member · Answer 6 · 2003-08-06T18:19:00+00:00

Hey there. Glad you found us again. So what do you think of this new redesign? It's amazing that you even recognized it was really us! LOL

In any case, it's weird that those specs won't work on a RedHat 8 or 9 system. To be perfectly honest with ya though, RedHat 7.3 is my absolute favorite.

AthlonXP2800+ 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 7 · 2003-08-16T20:03:54+00:00

Linux is by far a more stable platform for servers. its easily customizable and very rarely crashes....very little downtime! A buddy of mine only reboots his Linux server every 6 months...and thats just for the hell of it!

You can even run a Windows network using a Linux server :)\

however, Linux can be tricky to use. If you are not familiar with Linux...i would suggest setting up your Windows Server with RAID to provide fault-tolerance. I personally prefer using Windows Server 2003. its easy to setup...usually takes about a day to install and get a domain up and running. and Active directory is simple to deal with. Maybe you can use a Linux server as a backup domain controller? just have someone set it up for you if you dont know how.

Also...I know for a fact SuSE and Mandrake Linux work on machines as old as 80386s :) ...so a Linux server can be fairly cheap.

motech 1 Light Poster · Answer 8 · 2003-08-22T05:24:19+00:00

One word. APACHE
Yes.. it runs on Windoze also.

strongshock 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 9 · 2003-10-11T08:40:24+00:00

are you currently using a hosting service for you site? if so, how much do you know about webservers? you may be in for a headache if you haven't run a webserver before, regardless which os you go with. further, if you know little about linux too, setting up a linux server is probably out of the question, at least for now.

you might find it easy to use apache on windows, but you may need to do some reading to set up virtual servers (ie: 2 or more domains over one ip). i know linux supports unlimited users for free, and can be setup as complex as you wish (you can even be a dial-up ISP for free). i'm not sure how much similar capability would cost using win server, not sure i want to know. i'll forgo further discussion about the costs of linux vs win, or the fact that one of them is notoriously self-centered. you can read about those ideas all over the web and some of the above posts have already wasted much of your time (time you could've spent learning linux:)).

if you want a free and very easy to use backend server that on your dell (or any winbox), 3 words is better than 1: APACHE 2 TRIAD

i have "the triad" controlling my xp home webserver right now. it has been up and stable for 2 wks, lol. but that's not indicating a crash, it's because i'm dual-booted into my new redhat to learn more about fascinating linux.

good luck with whatever you choose!

amayers 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 10 · 2003-10-17T18:56:51+00:00

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.

As for Linux being more mainstream, you haven't identified what planet you are posting from, but here where we are, Linux has over half the internet server market, Windoz is in second place ;~).

I think a newbie can make a Linux machine Pretty secure, off the stating line, it's not like you have to do alot.

Windoz is so fraught with hundreds of security holes, because it does not possess a simple sound solid architecture. It also suffers from having literally thousands of ambitious, but not yet highly skilled programmers, futzing with it. Once programmers have a good degree of skill, they become PMs at MS. XP is a many times ressurrected, 9 billion pound, gorilla coded version of MS OS/2 ver 1.0. Just look at the volume of patches you must continually download ... think they are all top notch? Think MS puts their most tallented programmers on patch work? They (patches) have their own (albeit different) holes.

..ajm

Kriss 0 Newbie Poster · Answer 11 · 2003-10-19T00:16:42+00:00

GNU/Linux is bether than windows. In any way. Its more secure, its very easy to administer, it doesnt run a GUI by default (depends on the distro), it comes with all the tool you need and more, it has a larger server userbase than what windows have, so if you get in any troubles are more likely to get help with it by google, IRC, usenet etc. Just take a look at www.tldp.org

Take Debian for example. Lets say, you want to upgrade serverapp1 because there was a vuln. discovered for it. But serverapp1 depends on serverapp2 which depends on serverapp3. It would take a great deal of time to get all of those by hand, so you can just install them all by "apt-get install serverapp1". Answer yes on that you want to install all of the packages, wait while it downloads, installs and restart the deamons. Was that hard? No, not at all. Ok, say there is a lot of new packages avalible to Debian. Just do a "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade". All for free.

You also have a lot of IDS avalible, so if your server gets root compromised it really doesnt matter. Take Grsec as an example. There you can hide all the procesess from everyone, limit root (so root cant eg. rm -rf /), you can get the ip adress to a person who started a process etc.

You also have tripwire that monitors files that should not be changed, so if a critical file gets changed, tripwire will yell and scream and if you didnt do it, you will know whats going on.

Do I need to mention chroot? ;)

Well, I could list stuff like this all night but I'm stopping here. Go free software :)

twilli227 45 Junior Poster in Training · Answer 12 · 2003-12-08T09:55:04+00:00

quote:
Anyways, I installed Linux Redhat 7.3. Redhat 8 and 9 didn't work, it just woden't boot. I also tried Mandrake 9.1, same thing. I guess older versions only work on my Gateway.

First of all, make sure you burn your cds as isos, not data cds. Second, go into your bios and make sure the first boot device is your cdrom or dvdrom drive.

Sorry if this thread is a bit dated, but maybe it will help someone else in the future.
One last thought, only you can make the final decision on what is best. For some it will be windows, and for others it will be linux. If you are more comfortable with windows, then stick with that. If you are interested in linux or bsd, then try them out, and then you can make an educated evaluation of which one will best for you.
Good luck :cheesy:

Zachery 43 The Geek Father Team Colleague · Answer 13 · 2003-12-08T10:18:57+00:00

so i guess ill add my two sense, id personally take win 2k3 server, dont bother with the web server edition.

if you need php support install apache, and if you need it with asp you can install the non cgi version for IIS, personally ive never thought very high of IIS i can configure apache better than i can IIS, and ive used IIS a few times with very little success.

my current dedicated box is 2k3 server, running Apache 2 ^^ and it almost never goes offf unless we plan to update the whole system, (so around every 3 - 4 months for patches php mysql apache updates mailserver and whatnot) so we have a fairly good uptime. now i know that some ppl say well on a FreeBSD system we never rebooted in 3 years >.> i personally belive that its good to give a system a good reboot now and then.

As for linux, i wouldnt suggest it for someone whos new to it. if your an expireneced linux user, go crazy with it

as for novell? it was good in its day but its time is over and its not really all that great anymore

viperman224 18 Junior Poster · Answer 14 · 2003-12-13T03:48:22+00:00

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.

he was talking about 120 gigs of hard drive space not ram

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 15 · 2003-12-14T06:18:27+00:00

as for novell? it was good in its day but its time is over and its not really all that great anymore

Sounds like an uneducated user to me..

People, don't talk about things you don't know. Novell is just as powerfull as everything else, and works better and easier then most ;-). Oh, and yes, I know about Novell (I have a Novell server in my house running print and file management).

Paladine 138 Master Poster Team Colleague · Answer 16 · 2003-12-18T14:19:01+00:00

Paladine 138 Master Poster

20 Years Ago

I second that!

alc6379 120 Cookie... That's it Team Colleague · Answer 17 · 2003-12-19T12:13:21+00:00

Novell is the bomb.

Everytime I hear someone say, "Novell sucks", I cringe. Most likely, they've never touched it-- they probably only know it's some relic from the past.

From a directory services standpoint, you can't beat it. For stability, it runs like a champ. Even with the Release of NetWare 6, you are able to integrate nearly every box you have in a network, be it UNIX, Linux, Windows, Novell, whatever, into one single directory structure. The cool thing is you can administer the whole deal from any machine with a web browser.

What's even greater is that once NetWare 7 comes out, you'll have the option of running NetWare with the Linux kernel. So, you'll have all of the NetWare features that make it so great, and you'll have the Linux applications available to you.

Quick Fact: Did you know that many Formula 1 racers use Novell? Because NetWare can represent any object in your organization as a leaf object in its tree, F1 techs use Novell to monitor all of the various telemetry that's recorded on the race car!

Zachery 43 The Geek Father Team Colleague · Answer 18 · 2003-12-19T21:25:29+00:00

Actually what your posts shows me is that you dotn know a whole alot about novell as it is. as it already runs a Linux like kernal ;D

:)

alc6379 120 Cookie... That's it Team Colleague · Answer 19 · 2003-12-22T06:59:33+00:00

I don't claim to know that much about Novell, but what do you mean when you say "Linux-like"? I mean, every kernel pretty much does the same thing, but they differ in how it's done. When you say that it's like Linux, my ears perk up-- in what way is it similar to the Linux kernel? I do have some vague knowledge of Novell history, when they owned the Sys V code and everything, and I even realize that they used some of that code to enhance their Netware line... Is that what you mean?

But, I did just do some reading. Apparently, Novell has shifted direction, but only slightly. I don't think they're going to have the option of running Netware 7 with a Linux kernel anymore. Instead, what they've done is developed a package of tools that allows tighter integration with a Linux server. It's called Nterprise tools for Linux or something.

It's not going to be Novell running on a Linux kernel, it's going to be Novell services running on a Linux kernel. So, that means you'll be able to use Novell tools like ZENworks to manage the Linux machine, just like it was a Novell server, FWIW.

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 20 · 2003-12-22T11:52:02+00:00

Actually, all novell servers, from 1.0 and on run on DOS! FreeDOS, Dr. Dos, MS-Dos, some type of dos. Basically, dos loads, loads the autoexec.bat and runs SERVER.EXE, the Novell loader. Novell isn't a kernel, just everything else. Just an interesting fact ;-)

Novell NetWare 7.0 will run on a Linux kernel, thats all.

NetWare is 3000x easier to set up then Linux, and it runs almost all of the most popular Linux open source software now - PHP/MySQL/Apache and so on.

Now, only if it did ASP.NET ;-).

Zachery 43 The Geek Father Team Colleague · Answer 21 · 2003-12-23T00:47:15+00:00

i was refering to the fact of how it loads moduals onto its already running system sorta like Linux does

alc6379 120 Cookie... That's it Team Colleague · Answer 22 · 2003-12-23T03:01:36+00:00

Actually, all novell servers, from 1.0 and on run on DOS! FreeDOS, Dr. Dos, MS-Dos, some type of dos. Basically, dos loads, loads the autoexec.bat and runs SERVER.EXE, the Novell loader. Novell isn't a kernel, just everything else. Just an interesting fact
Novell NetWare 7.0 will run on a Linux kernel, thats all.
NetWare is 3000x easier to set up then Linux, and it runs almost all of the most popular Linux open source software now - PHP/MySQL/Apache and so on.
Now, only if it did ASP.NET.

Actually, Netware doesn't run under DOS, it's just loaded by DOS. Kind of like how you can use loadlin to load up a Linux kernel through DOS. After server.exe is started, Netware removes DOS from memory.

I remember a little bit from the Netware class I took...

So, it does turn out that Netware 7 will use the Linux kernel after all?

alc6379 120 Cookie... That's it Team Colleague · Answer 23 · 2003-12-23T03:02:08+00:00

i was refering to the fact of how it loads moduals onto its already running system sorta like Linux does

That doesn't neccesarily make it Linux-like. I mean, there are tons of OSes that do that. I realized that you could load modules into the Netware kernel, but I didn't know that's what you meant. I mean, the BSDs, all of the SCO OSes, I think even Solaris does that. So, you could really even go so far as to say that it's "FreeBSD-like" or, "SCO OpenServer-like" if that's your basis

)BIG"B"Affleck 15 Master Poster Banned · Answer 24 · 2004-01-14T12:33:24+00:00

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

Let a Microsoft user interrupt here.
Ok, you want to know which is better I guessing here you mean security wise.
Lets take a look at OpenBSD and Mandrake
OpenBSD for example offers no additional security functionality over Mandrake Linux, but people think it is more secure because it ships with a more secure configuration. My arguemnt is that after setting up a real world system, the Mandrake one will have greater implementation assurances and consequently will be more secure for the same efforts than the OpenBSD one.
"the 'secure by default' system cant be blamed the first time some knownot configures his web server wrong on his box and gets rooted."
There is an internet full of documents on locking systems down, there are virtually none on how to open up a hardened system in a secure manner. Are they a knownot, or are they doing the best they can (at a more difficult task) in absence of good/any information?

(no comments were directed towards anyone)

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 25 · 2004-01-14T22:26:06+00:00

First of all, next time you reply, please use BBCode for the quotes. I edited your post and fixed the problem.

Secondly, I don't understand the point of your post. Are you saying that Mandrake Linux is better then Windows and OpenBSD? I understand your views about 'secure by default' but I disagree.

When setting up a real world system, we lock down everything that we don't need, and try to secure everything else. This requires people to understand whats running and how to secure it. Newbies aren't going to know how to secure everything. If everything is secure by default, this makes life much easier.

)BIG"B"Affleck 15 Master Poster Banned · Answer 26 · 2004-01-15T01:01:25+00:00

1st of all(opinion) Do we really need more comments made by people who fail to read the information in question and my post, which was so kindly and clearly provided to them?

2nd of all(opinion) Do we really need more people just chirping in with unsupported, unsubstantiated opinions and claims?

Confused yet it doesn't take much?

Let me help you out here you probably became confused.
I speak of default configurations. I can't recall how many times I've come across "X is already hardened, so it is more secure." Operating systems like OpenBSD and Windows 2003 both fine examples of tribute to this fallacy. BIG"B"Affleck can & will demonstrate to NJWnews you and the readers of this thread that more secure by default actually results in a less secure real world system. How is that for facts shmacts?

Want me to continue?

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 27 · 2004-01-15T06:41:18+00:00

that more secure by default actually results in a less secure real world system. How is that for facts shmacts?
Want me to continue?

Yes, I really do. I want to see you make fun of yourself. That thought is so... wrong that I thought you were kidding...

Zachery 43 The Geek Father Team Colleague · Answer 28 · 2004-01-15T06:46:05+00:00

Yes, I really do. I want to see you make fun of yourself. That thought is so... wrong that I thought you were kidding...

id rather have a NOS with everything off by default. that way i know EXACTLY whats on and whats off, instead of having to pool thought tons of crap to figure out what else needs to be secured

)BIG"B"Affleck 15 Master Poster Banned · Answer 29 · 2004-01-16T03:06:47+00:00

If you want to talk about which system is more secure in the hands of an Knownot (untrained ), than yes. OpenBSD is king and NT is the worst OS ever.

Secondly, I don't understand the point of your post. Are you saying that Mandrake Linux is better then Windows and OpenBSD? I understand your views about 'secure by default' but I disagree.

More chirping!
Yeah, you disagree but you fail to post any facts. Basically its all unsupported, unsubstantiated claims ect .ect... Which fails to suprise me! Allow me to continue.

When setting up a real world system, we lock down everything that we don't need, and try to secure everything else.

Seriously, pick up a book an OS security theory, the lot of you... it'll make for more interesting conversations.

. If everything is secure by default, this makes life much easier.

Still talking default security and application level bugs?

*cries*

Why does no one ever talk about actual system security, always with the default installs or application level bugs. Who cares? I mean honestly.

There is no truth or deeper understanding to be had talking about how a product's default configuration or what buffer wasn't checked. For some reason there is never any discussion of the actual security mechanisms. The types of access controls, audit trails, etc, etc....

Default configurations are a dead horse that never had anything to offer in the first place, seriously, . Does it really matter if a system by default has 0 full compromisable exploits or 1 or 3,000? All that matters is if the system can be configured in a manner offering sufficient assurances as justified by your threats and asset values.

Sounds like an uneducated user to me..
People, don't talk about things you don't know.

Thats what now Im telling you.

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.
Shit hard to configure.

RTFM ....

man man

....ect,ect......

Soon after you start posting fact behind your now, unsubstantiaded claims.
I will explain to the masses why
"more secure by default" actually results in a less scure real world system" until then let that saturate.

Tekmaven 258 Software Architect Team Colleague · Answer 30 · 2004-01-16T05:34:04+00:00

Just so you know, I'm pretty good at everything Linux. I've been using it on and off for a few years - I'm no newbie by any definition.

Where is your evidence for your claims? Give me some numbers, some research findings, anything...! All you have right now is your word, and honestly your word could use grammer and spell checking.

[Edit] Two wrongs don't make a right, so im contracting my distasteful remark.