FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


which server operating system?





martin91
Hello

i am going too fix a webserver and wonder wich operating system is best too use ?

i going too have a vent servers and stuff too

is windows server 2003 good ? i can get free serial keys from school too that system

Sry for bad english Embarassed
Fire Boar
Debian Linux is incredibly stable and a great choice for web servers. It's also really easy to set up your website. When installing, make sure none of the "extra packages" boxes are ticked except for "basic system". Then when you reboot, log on with user "root" and password of whatever you chose, then type:

Code:
apt-get install apache2


Then stick the web files in the /var/www folder.

If you're not comfortable with using a terminal, then follow the above instructions, but instead of the command above type the following instead:

Code:
apt-get install apache2 kde-core kdm synaptic


Then reboot your computer (quite important, just type "reboot" into the terminal) and you will be presented with a nice desktop interface. You can then just use the file browser to move in the website.

The trouble with using Windows to host a website is that Apache (most popular professional website program) is very difficult to install unless you use something like WAMP, which is only really ideal for testing. A Linux environment with Apache installed performs much better, crashes less often and is really simple to install. Plus, it's entirely free and legal from start to finish, no faffing about with product keys.

Oh, and it will host ventrilo server too, you can download it from the ventrilo website.
martin91
Okey tahnks i will try linux, have never tried it before but we will learn linux in school soon so it will be a some practise before that

the computer i will use got this hardware setup:

2.8 GHz Intel pentium 4
1 gb RAM
GPU i don't know but don't think it matter Smile

Is this enough too run a WEB server and a ventserver
Fire Boar
That's plenty. You're right - you don't need a GPU if you're going entirely command line based, and if you get a desktop environment then you need a very basic GPU - it's not at all demanding.
Studio Madcrow
Linux, Solaris and FreeBSD are probably the most common and best free server OSes and as long as your hardware is supported, you can't really go wrong with any of them. If you do have some money lying around, Windows Server (both 2003 and 2008) are supossedly better than one might expect, though they take more work to keep "secure" than a Unix-like system might. Personally, though, I just use Linux. It's there and it's free and that's all that matters for me.
Fire Boar
Windows Server is probably only really a viable option if you fall into one of two categories:
  • You need to use Microsoft Exchange or another Microsoft-only server program, and there is no other alternative (very rare).
  • You haven't heard of anything else.
  • You don't know anything about Linux, and you really don't want to learn.
  • You have an irrational fear of Linux (it's really not that scary you know!).
Ankhanu
Fire Boar wrote:
Debian Linux is incredibly stable and a great choice for web servers.


Debian is also my suggestion. Wonderful servers.
Diablosblizz
Actually Fire, I like Window Server because of it's ease of use. For a Windows person, Linux can be very hard to learn, like you said not many people want to learn it. I've tried it, and enjoyed it. I perfer Windows more because I know what I am doing more in Windows then in Linux, although it was a fun experience to play with.

I believe your statements are your personal opinion, and I wouldn't recommend a Linux server for the average "noob". Windows servers are just as stable as Linux Servers, and are easier to use for somebody that has "grown up" with Windows.

Quote:
You need to use Microsoft Exchange or another Microsoft-only server program, and there is no other alternative (very rare).


A Windows Server 2003 machine can do anything and everything a Linux server can do (except maybe cronjobs - which is basically scheduled tasks), so there is no need for a MSEX server for somebody running Vent servers for his games. In my opinion, go with Windows cause it seems you know what you're doing with it.

Best of luck.
mehulved
For something really simple and out of the box for a web server, there's Ubuntu server too. I wouldn't definitely use Ubuntu as a server myself. But, it is a good choice for someone who's just jumping into linux. It should be fine for a small network to choose Ubuntu, but if the service is more critical and serves higher userbase then go for something that you are familiar with. Even though Linux maybe easier but if the person in charge isn't ready to understand it, it can get more complicated. If you are familiar with and able to secure a MS server then go with it. It is always better to to keep things smoother and understand what's going on.
If you wish to use Linux, you can give it a spin on test system first and get familiar with it, then implement it on the server.
Diablosblizz
Ubuntu server is completely command line and NOT good for a new user to Linux. If the user doesn't know anything about Linux then they will be lost forever. It does not work completely out of the box, it requires some configuration and it's not easy for the Linux noob.

In my opinion, the Linux server operating system is NOT a good choice for somebody just getting started. Also, I am not sure if Ventrilo servers would run on a Ubuntu server. Remember, the Ubuntu server and Ubuntu Desktop are two different things.
Fire Boar
Um, dude? Are you going to stop bashing Linux servers? I've already pointed out two viable options: one for the command-line user and one for the GUI user. Both of which use Debian Linux, a distribution that time and time again has proven itself to provide the most reliable and snappiest servers. Even Ubuntu Desktop performs better as a web/vent server than Windows Server 2003.

Also, system requirements are much lower for Linux. Getting an illegal crack of WS03 is not only illegal, but a waste of time when you could have a better solution for free.

Ubuntu Desktop Hardy is a strong choice for new users. It's incredibly simple to set up a web server.

Windows is okay if you want to set up Microsoft's own web application, but setting up Apache, the most popular application with some special options that you might need such as use of .htaccess, is far more difficult unless you go along the WAMP route.

Debian Linux is a perfect choice for most server administrators. Those knowledgeable or willing to learn about the CLI will love it to bits for its speed and reliability. The rest of us can opt to install a desktop environment, in which it's easy to move files about, handle compression and set up the required programs.
Diablosblizz
Um, dude? Are you going to stop accusing me of "bashing" Linux servers? Did I ONCE say that Linux servers were incapable of doing these things? I am simply saying that for somebody that is going to use a Ventrilo server a Windows system may be better.

I, also, never said that the Linux servers weren't stable, I am just stating that Windows servers are just as stable, I use one and it has never crashed on me. Windows Server 2003 is also very small on resources, I run it on a 733 MHz 512 MB machine and it runs perfectly fine. Also, when running Ubuntu server my ram usage would increase majorly over time, starting at 80 MB and rising way above 400 MB, while Windows hasn't gotten higher than 260 MB.

I was also stating that installing server applications may be easier to install for Windows Machines, if the user is used to the Windows GUI. When I started Linux, I had no idea what I was doing. Of course, it's not that hard to learn, but like you said for somebody that doesn't want to learn and to just stick with something s/he knows then so be it. Also, to install a Apache server (for an example) on a Ubuntu Desktop you still need to run a command through the terminal.

Don't take offence to this, because I never was bashing Linux servers. If anything, you bashing Windows servers.
sheedatali
[quote="Diablosblizz"]I believe your statements are your personal opinion, and I wouldn't recommend a Linux server for the average "noob". Windows servers are just as stable as Linux Servers, and are easier to use for somebody that has "grown up" with Windows.

What is a "noob" doing running a server. And by the way ease of use argument does not stand since anyone doing something without actually understanding what exactly is going on is asking for trouble. That is how I see windows, now I am not saying that Windows servers are crap. I am however saying that "noobs" are attracted to that them because they give false sense of security, it works. And when things go tits up then "noobs" have no idea on what to do. This is where Linux's helps you to understand "what/how" and most importantly "why". Experience Windows administrators achieve almost same results because they know exactly what is what and why. Not a bash at Windows by the way, just my take on friendliness.
Diablosblizz
A "noob" could be running a Server for his or her games. For example, I've used my Server 2003 for Counter-Strike servers for the longest time. I was a noob back then. I agree with the point that if something goes wrong on a Windows Machine in may be lengthly to understand, although I think that would apply to Linux as well.

I'm 16, and I know my way around Windows Server 2003 very well. If not, I have a trusty 16 year old friend that knows so much about networking it's insane for his age.
Fire Boar
Diablosblizz wrote:
Um, dude? Are you going to stop accusing me of "bashing" Linux servers? Did I ONCE say that Linux servers were incapable of doing these things? I am simply saying that for somebody that is going to use a Ventrilo server a Windows system may be better.


Maybe, maybe not. I've never used Ventrilo, but there's a server application for each.

Quote:
I, also, never said that the Linux servers weren't stable, I am just stating that Windows servers are just as stable, I use one and it has never crashed on me. Windows Server 2003 is also very small on resources, I run it on a 733 MHz 512 MB machine and it runs perfectly fine. Also, when running Ubuntu server my ram usage would increase majorly over time, starting at 80 MB and rising way above 400 MB, while Windows hasn't gotten higher than 260 MB.


Nor did I say that Windows Server was unstable. The RAM thing you're talking about is due to the way statistics are generated. Each application depends on a number of libraries, all of which are loaded into RAM just once. More than one app using a library? The full RAM usage of that library is counted in both programs.

Besides, if you're complaining about lots of RAM being used, why? It's loaded more stuff into memory, making efficient use of the system resources. Hard drive usage is SLOW when compared to RAM, so the more used, the better generally.

Quote:
I was also stating that installing server applications may be easier to install for Windows Machines, if the user is used to the Windows GUI. When I started Linux, I had no idea what I was doing. Of course, it's not that hard to learn, but like you said for somebody that doesn't want to learn and to just stick with something s/he knows then so be it. Also, to install a Apache server (for an example) on a Ubuntu Desktop you still need to run a command through the terminal.


Oh please. I hope you're joking. Typing in a single terminal command is enough to turn off someone who's never used a terminal before? One that I've put here explicitly?

Quote:
Don't take offence to this, because I never was bashing Linux servers. If anything, you bashing Windows servers.


*sigh* Maybe I am bashing Windows servers. I've just had too many horrible experiences with the same. Maybe if Windows Server impressed me more than it has so far, I would have a more positive opinion. Right now, from what I've experienced (web hosting and a school network) it has been literally begging me to give it a good ol' bash, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to even the biggest technophobe.

To lighten the mood, here's a lame joke. I prefer BASHing Linux servers too! Gah, that was truly terrible.
Ankhanu
Diablosblizz wrote:
Actually Fire, I like Window Server because of it's ease of use. For a Windows person, Linux can be very hard to learn, like you said not many people want to learn it. I've tried it, and enjoyed it. I perfer Windows more because I know what I am doing more in Windows then in Linux, although it was a fun experience to play with.

I believe your statements are your personal opinion, and I wouldn't recommend a Linux server for the average "noob". Windows servers are just as stable as Linux Servers, and are easier to use for somebody that has "grown up" with Windows.


I dunno, I AM the average noob who's grown up with Windows and barely knows how to use Linux... I still find Linux a better OS for use with server applications. It's more stable and freely available... and the online documentation and support makes it very easy to find the information one needs to sucessfully install and operate various online servers without being a Linux guru. Hell, you don't even have to LEARN anything to do it, just follow set by step directions that can be found all over the web Razz

I wish I'd retained more of how Linux command line works that I can do what I want without having to look it up, but there ya have it.
Diablosblizz
Okay Fire, that was horrible yes but funny. Razz I wasn't joking though, I believe that it may be slightly easier to use the GUI, although I am not saying it's impossible to learn. With all the sources out there (Google) it's flipping easy, but for somebody who is young it may be slightly easier to use Windows.

Please don't take any offence to me liking Windows more, and thinking that they are better. I love Linux as well, just for me it's easier to work on a Windows Machine. Linux actually made my web slightly faster (by like 25 ms) but I lost a lot of things in the process.

Also, maybe cause I wasn't able to get hard drive sharing to work, I have no idea how to get Samba working properly. Actually, this topic actually made me install Ubuntu again, I just got a bit ticked off because once my graphics were awesome (better than Vista) then all of a sudden it stopped working. I'm trying to see if I can get it working again.

Thank you Fire.
Fire Boar
Diablosblizz wrote:
Okay Fire, that was horrible yes but funny. Razz I wasn't joking though, I believe that it may be slightly easier to use the GUI, although I am not saying it's impossible to learn. With all the sources out there (Google) it's flipping easy, but for somebody who is young it may be slightly easier to use Windows.


You could well be right.

Diablosblizz wrote:
Please don't take any offence to me liking Windows more, and thinking that they are better. I love Linux as well, just for me it's easier to work on a Windows Machine. Linux actually made my web slightly faster (by like 25 ms) but I lost a lot of things in the process.


Offense to your OS preference? Why would I do that? Some prefer Windows, some prefer Linux.

Diablosblizz wrote:
Also, maybe cause I wasn't able to get hard drive sharing to work, I have no idea how to get Samba working properly. Actually, this topic actually made me install Ubuntu again, I just got a bit ticked off because once my graphics were awesome (better than Vista) then all of a sudden it stopped working. I'm trying to see if I can get it working again.


Ooh, weird. I'm assuming you were using Compiz with the rotatey desktop and stuff. I'm more a fan of Kubuntu myself - very powerful, nice clean desktop, nothing too fancy. Great colour scheme.

Samba is really easy on Kubuntu - simply type "smb:/" into the address bar of Konqueror. Trust me, it's the easiest thing in the world. Not sure about the Gnome equivalent though.

Diablosblizz wrote:
Thank you Fire.


Um, I don't really remember what I did to deserve thanks, but you're welcome all the same! Very Happy
albuferque
Fedora Linux is incredibly stable and a great choice for web servers. It's also really easy to set up your website. When installing, make sure none of the "extra packages" boxes are ticked except for "basic system". Then when you reboot, log on with user "root" and password of whatever you chose, then type:

Code:
yum install httpd


Then stick the web files in the /var/www/html folder.

If you're not comfortable with using a terminal, then follow the above instructions, but instead of the command above type the following instead:

Code:
yum install httpd kde-core kdm synaptic


Then reboot your computer (quite important, just type "reboot" into the terminal) and you will be presented with a nice desktop interface. You can then just use the file browser to move in the website.

The trouble with using Windows to host a website is that Apache (most popular professional website program) is very difficult to install unless you use something like WAMP, which is only really ideal for testing. A Linux environment with Apache installed performs much better, crashes less often and is really simple to install. Plus, it's entirely free and legal from start to finish, no faffing about with product keys.

Oh, and it will host ventrilo server too, you can download it from the ventrilo website.
Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz
albuferque
Windows Small Business Server is probably only really a viable option if you fall into one of two categories:

* You need to use Microsoft Exchange or another Microsoft-only server program, and there is no other alternative (very rare).
* You haven't heard of anything else .
* You don't know anything about Linux, and you really don't want to learn.
* You have an irrational fear of Linux (it's really not that scary you know!).
* You have an irrational fear of BSD (it's really not that scary you know!).

Very Happy
albuferque
SLACKWARE server is completely command line and NOT good for a new user to Linux. If the user knows Debian Linux then he/she will be lost forever. It does not work completely out of the box, it requires some configuration and it's not easy for the Debian noob.

In my opinion, the Linux server operating system is NOT a good choice for somebody just getting started. Also, I am sure that Ventrilo servers will run on a Ubuntu server. Remember, server and Debian Desktop are two different things.
Fire Boar
Please keep it all to one post. Now, your post about Fedora applies also to most other Linuxes, with varying degrees of customisability and desktop/no desktop and different package manager (yum vs apt-get and so on). But...

albuferque wrote:
Then reboot your computer (quite important, just type "reboot" into the terminal) and you will be presented with a nice desktop interface. You can then just use the file browser to move in the website.


This isn't Windows! You technically never need to reboot unless you're changing the kernel, and here is no different. Instead of typing reboot, you can instead type "/etc/init.d/kdm start" and (tada) up comes the login dialog. Or, if you want to log into a desktop as root (really not recommended) "startx" should do the trick.
frenz
i really like unbuntu server its free, easy to use & install you can install webmin to easy manage your web server
frenz
Diablosblizz wrote:
Ubuntu server is completely command line and NOT good for a new user to Linux. If the user doesn't know anything about Linux then they will be lost forever. It does not work completely out of the box, it requires some configuration and it's not easy for the Linux noob.

In my opinion, the Linux server operating system is NOT a good choice for somebody just getting started. Also, I am not sure if Ventrilo servers would run on a Ubuntu server. Remember, the Ubuntu server and Ubuntu Desktop are two different things.


just install webmin bro & you can manage your server easy

visit webmin home page http://webmin.com
futurcat
Windows Server 2008 R2 is rock solid, once you learn how to treat this.

Compared to 2003, and even to 2008 (which is quite different from 2008 R2):

Core OS improvements
Fully multi-componentized operating system.
Improved hot patching, a feature that allows non-kernel patches to occur without the need for a reboot.
Support for being booted from Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI)-compliant firmware on x86-64 systems.
Dynamic Hardware Partitioning
Support for the hot-addition or replacement of processors and memory, on capable hardware.
[edit]Active Directory improvements
Read-only domain controllers (RODCs) in Active Directory, intended for use in branch office or other scenarios where a domain controller may reside in a low physical security environment. The RODC holds a non-writeable copy of Active Directory, and redirects all write attempts to a Full Domain Controller. It replicates all accounts except sensitive ones.[citation needed][clarification needed] In RODC mode, credentials are not cached by default. Moreover, only the replication partner of the RODC needs to run Windows Server 2008.[clarification needed] Also, local administrators can log on to the machine to perform maintenance tasks without requiring administrative rights on the domain.[citation needed]
Restartable Active Directory allows ADDS to be stopped and restarted from the Management Console or the command-line without rebooting the domain controller. This reduces downtime for offline operations and reduces overall DC servicing requirements with Server Core. ADDS is implemented as a Domain Controller Service in Windows Server 2008.
[edit]Policy related improvements
All of the Group Policy improvements from Windows Vista are included. Group Policy Management Console (GPMC) is built-in. The Group Policy objects are indexed for search and can be commented on.[17]
Policy-based networking with Network Access Protection, improved branch management and enhanced end user collaboration. Policies can be created to ensure greater Quality of Service for certain applications or services that require prioritization of network bandwidth between client and server.
Granular password settings within a single domain - ability to implement different password policies for administrative accounts on a "group" and "user" basis, instead of a single set of password settings to the whole domain.
[edit]Disk management and file storage improvements
The ability to resize hard disk partitions without stopping the server, even the system partition. This applies only to simple and spanned volumes, not to striped volumes.
Shadow Copy based block-level backup which supports optical media, network shares and Windows Recovery Environment.
DFS enhancements - SYSVOL on DFS-R, Read-only Folder Replication Member. There is also support for domain-based DFS namespaces that exceed the previous size recommendation of 5,000 folders with targets in a namespace.[18]
Several improvements to Failover Clustering (High-availability clusters).[19]
Internet Storage Naming Server (iSNS) enables central registration, deregistration and queries for iSCSI hard drives.
[edit]Protocol and cryptography improvements
Support for 128- and 256-bit AES encryption for the Kerberos authentication protocol.
New cryptography (CNG) API which supports elliptic curve cryptography and improved certificate management.
Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, a new Microsoft proprietary VPN protocol.
AuthIP, a Microsoft proprietary extension of the IKE cryptographic protocol used in IPsec VPN networks.
Server Message Block 2.0 protocol in the new TCP/IP stack provides a number of communication enhancements, including greater performance when connecting to file shares over high-latency links and better security through the use of mutual authentication and message signing.
[edit]Improvements due to client-side (Windows Vista) enhancements
Searching Windows Server 2008 servers from Windows Vista clients delegates the query to the server, which uses the Windows Search technology to search and transfer the results back to the client.
In a networked environment with a print server running Windows Vista, clients can render print jobs locally before sending them to print servers to reduce the load on the server and increase its availability.
Event forwarding aggregates and forwards logs of subscribed Windows Vista client computers back to a central console. Event forwarding can be enabled on the client subscribers from the central server directly from the event management console.
[edit]Miscellaneous improvements
Windows Deployment Services replacing Automated Deployment Services and Remote Installation Services. Windows Deployment Services (WDS) support an enhanced multicast feature when deploying operating system images.[20]
Internet Information Services 7 - Increased security, Robocopy deployment, improved diagnostic tools, delegated administration.
Windows Internal Database, a variant of SQL Server Express 2005, which serves as a common storage back-end for several other components such as Windows System Resource Manager, Windows SharePoint Services and Windows Server Update Services. It is not intended to be used by third-party applications.
An optional "Desktop Experience" component provides the same Windows Aero user interface as Windows Vista, both for local users, as well as remote users connecting through Remote Desktop.
futurcat
matricresult wrote:
martin91 wrote:
Hello

i am going too fix a webserver and wonder wich operating system is best too use ?

i going too have a vent servers and stuff too

is windows server 2003 good ? i can get free serial keys from school too that system

Sry for bad english Embarassed


i suggest you to use windows server 2008


2008R2 is a better option. Heavier, but more robust.
vaishnavsm
I like CentOS, Arch or BackTrack (if you need security).
futurcat
vaishnavsm wrote:
I like CentOS, Arch or BackTrack (if you need security).


I never had seen backtrack as an OS to us for Web hosting.

Do you have experience with that? Sounds interesting.

I like that asa tool for security auditing, butnever tried to go beyond that.
vaishnavsm
I have never tried backtrack, but one of my friends say it was good. He failed to run the server though, because of the ISP. Embarassed Rolling Eyes Embarassed
cnitolo
I never used any kind of Linux, only Windows, 2000, 2003, 2008 and the 2008R2 is the best OS for server at the moment, very stable, very difficult to catch and shadow copy that is a feature that back a file or folder with just the right click is great.
k_s_baskar
I am using CentOS with Kloxo both of them are free and user friendly. just try.
futurcat
frenz wrote:
Diablosblizz wrote:
Ubuntu server is completely command line and NOT good for a new user to Linux. If the user doesn't know anything about Linux then they will be lost forever. It does not work completely out of the box, it requires some configuration and it's not easy for the Linux noob.

In my opinion, the Linux server operating system is NOT a good choice for somebody just getting started. Also, I am not sure if Ventrilo servers would run on a Ubuntu server. Remember, the Ubuntu server and Ubuntu Desktop are two different things.


just install webmin bro & you can manage your server easy

visit webmin home page http://webmin.com


Thanks for that one! Webmin looks good.
sysna
i like debian , currently i have debian minimalist on my vps and it uses around 16mb of ram only ! so you can use all of your ram for running a game server, anyway centos is good too with lots of premade resources available out there for using.
jdelfire
where is the like button?

I really like this thread - I am learning a lot just from reading your guys opinion and suggestions.
futurcat
sysna wrote:
i like debian , currently i have debian minimalist on my vps and it uses around 16mb of ram only ! so you can use all of your ram for running a game server, anyway centos is good too with lots of premade resources available out there for using.


Is the Debian minimalist something easy to install?

I found this link http://saidkhorramshahgol.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/how-to-debian-minimal-installation/

Anyway it is true that typically you need more than that to run anything on the server.

Also, if you are not familiar with Linux, there is a lot to learn.
Tuvitor
I've always preferred Debian for my servers. CentOS works as well, though I prefer the way Debian does a lot of things to the Red Hat way.
futurcat
Tuvitor wrote:
I've always preferred Debian for my servers. CentOS works as well, though I prefer the way Debian does a lot of things to the Red Hat way.


Anything in concrete?
pauline123
I would suggest in the linux arena: Arch Linux. JUst because it is easy to setup if you have a little knowledge of linux and are willing and able to learn, a great wiki, and you can compile and install just about anything on it that is available for you to do so with. It also has a great and very friendly and helpful forum.
darthrevan
Well the OP is old, but I guess this would be more for others. I would use either Debian or FreeBSD. Debian Stable, is well, Stable since it has been tested for a while and bugs are less likely to be in it. FreeBSD is a OS and not just a kernel, and was at one point, used UNIX code.
Related topics
What is your operating system?
Creating a new Operating System
FreeBSD-also a good operating system
blackhawk [microsfot new server operating system but...
Windows XP the best?
What operating system do you use?
I Need distributed Operating System
sticking "Creating a new Operating System"
how to create an operating system?
The Singularity Operating System
BlueFeather Operating System
PocketPC Operating System change
What OS you live
What is your favorite operating system?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.