For Webservers: WINDOZE OR LUNIX

[Dalius]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[MrCary3]

Linux

[Jake Bunce]

use windows and give me your server's IP http://130.94.172.202/images/smilies/devil.gif (just kidding ;) )

use linux

[Dalius]

Hmmmm

1) Unix or Linux?

2) Which Kind of Unix/Linux?

3) Whats the dif?

[The Prohacker]

Originally posted by Dalius
Hmmmm

1) Unix or Linux?

2) Which Kind of Unix/Linux?

3) Whats the dif?


1) Unix isn't open source, linux is..

2 ) Most popular version of Linux is Redhat, but there is also SuSE, Slackware, etc.

3) Differnt distro's come with diffent software preinstalled... But all linux's funciton of of the linux kernel.... Other wise it wouldn't be linux :D

[eva2000]

definitely Linux :)

[Niteowl]

FreeBSD

[Jake Bunce]

i was told freebsd has superior SMP abilities. :confused:

[Unknown553]

Definately Linux

http://www.isc.tamu.edu/~lewing/linux/sit3-shine.7.gif

[JamesUS]

RedHat Linux :)

[IanMFT]

Originally posted by Jakeman
i was told freebsd has superior SMP abilities. :confused: Other way around, BSD owns on Single proc (ports tree is jawes) But on SMP 2.4.x linux is king

[Kaizen]

I recommend RedHat Linux 7.2.

Dont use 7.0 or 6.0.

[Martz]

Redhat 7.2 :)

However installing FreeBSD though an FTP proxy is pretty wicked, as all you need is 2 1.4mb floppy disks and an Internet/Proxy LAN connection and your away :D

[Chen]

Yup, Linux.

Originally posted by Kaizen
I recommend RedHat Linux 7.2.

Dont use 7.0 or 6.0.
Why would he use an old version of something anyway? ;)

[Kaizen]

Originally posted by FireFly

Why would he use an old version of something anyway? ;)

I think its best I dont answer that question :D

[JamesUS]

Originally posted by FireFly
Yup, Linux.


Why would he use an old version of something anyway? ;)

6.2 is still good (I use that), it's just the .0 releases that are generally unreliable.

[Kaizen]

7.2 is more likely to support your hardware than 6.2

[JamesUS]

Though theoretically you won't be using the latest and greatest hardware in a server. Servers need reliability over all else, which is why I prefer the tried and tested RH 6.2 rather than the somewhat newer 7.x.

Most of the new driver support in 7.x is focused away from the server market, for example on display cards and sound cards. Servers won't need decent display cards and shouldn't have sound cards at all.

[Dalius]

Ok, So RedHat Linux

Ok guys, i need help

I'm going to create a webserver box from SCRATCH

Recommend anything?

I need it all

Box, RAM, Motherboard, OS ect...


:confused: :confused: :confused:

[DrunkenStud]

http://members.rogers.com/drewfar/daemon.gif FreeBSD. Nuthin but :)

[Mr. X]

IIS is awesome *IF* you are a good administrator and keep an eye on it. Its a pain in the ass, but it works great with other backoffice products like Exchange if you make sure you do it right and keep an eye on security.

BUT if you dont want that, then I'd suggest linux.

Since linux is free, you save money on payments if you get a commercial webhost. Windows Server+licensing+labor can get pretty costly, whereas with Linux the labor is pretty much the only charge compared to Windows (exluding hardware etc).

[Sinecure]

Windows 3.1 for me !!

[Kaizen]

Originally posted by Sinecure
Windows 3.1 for me !!

lol

[Dalius]

What about Red Hat?

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by Mr. X
IIS is awesome *IF* you are a good administrator and keep an eye on it. Its a pain in the ass, but it works great with other backoffice products like Exchange if you make sure you do it right and keep an eye on security.

ass + backoffice + in the same sentence = Back Orifice != Tight Security => Jail House Rock => compromizing position = sore behind

Definitely not good.

[Hooper]

I wouldn't use windows on any machine that you didn't absolutely have too. Linux/Unix..... Never WinDoZ for a web box.

[Dalius]

Just finished downloading Mandrake Linux

Jeez, 1.9 gigs :eek:

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Dalius
Just finished downloading Mandrake Linux

Jeez, 1.9 gigs :eek:

I love Mandrake. Good version.

[Mr. X]

Im not insinuating anything here, but I'd like to know just for curiosity, how many ppl here who obviously dislike all things MS and IIS, have actually used IIS in a production environment etc?

[Hooper]

It's not that we dislike MS. They serve their purpose. But 90 percent of the web is ran on linux/unix for a reason. Stability. MS software has come a long way no doubt in terms of stability, but most will draw the line when talking web servers. I have experience with both. Just don't reccomend MS Servers when you have an option to use somthing known good.

[Mr. X]

Just don't reccomend MS Servers when you have an option to use somthing known good.

I just have to disagree with that. Whilst Apache is nice, I prefer IIS over it anyday. Apache does things IIS cant do, and vice versa. It depends on the specific application, but IIS isnt as bad as ppl make it out to be. As I said before, when properly administrated, IIS is an excellent piece of software, no matter what the *nix zealots say (then again Im a windows zealot so..;)

I see alot of ppl who slam IIS, yet when they are confronted about it (mind you Im talking about other forums from my experiences, not this one), they cant list specific reasons. Because IIS is for NT, and NT is by MS, to them its an excuse to bash IIS. I find alot of the ppl who do this usually just read about bad IIS experiences then make judgement on it without actually using it.

I have no prob with Apache, like I said its a great piece of software, but preferentially, I choose IIS easy. For others, Apache is the case.

Btw, the 90% figure sounds a little overblown to me. I'll have to dig up some figures I saw a while ago showing much differently. One of the reasons you could say Apache is heavily used and most likely more so than IIS is that its free. The performance/reliability debate aside, you dont need to pay the licensing fees like you would with NT, hence some ppl choose to run Apache not for its reputation as a webserver, but the fact that its free. But of course thats just my opinion gathered from the many experiences I've had wasting several hours in flamewars on other forums. :p

[The Prohacker]

Originally posted by Mr. X

they cant list specific reasons


CodeRed
Nimida

:D

[Hooper]

I can appreciate those who have had a good experience with IIS. In fact, as I mentioned I'm not an anti this or that type person. I do realize that you are correct though. Some bash MS server apps before having the opportunity to work with it. I would still prefer Apache over the IIS version I had a while back. As you say, there are clear benefits for specific instances with IIS. Same goes for Apache. I'm definitley not anti MS. In fact, my workstation is currently running XP on some brand new hardware that just came out. Runs super. Software is making progress and maybe you are correct when you said the all to important "If Administrated correctly" part of the sentence pertaining to IIS. As with any, education is the answer and to what degree you see success will be directly based on the skills you have to administrate such.

I'm still far more an Apache fan vs. the IIS. But I do have more experience with it as well.

[IanMFT]

See, i recommend *nix or BSD simply because of remote administration funtionality. SSH owns TS or Win2k telnet anyday and the IIS web admin is very unsecure. Just my opinion, i prefer *nix for serving because of its flexibility.

OTOH, an improperly *nix server is just as vulnerable as a Win2K one.

[Hooper]

Originally posted by IanMFT
IIS web admin is very unsecure. Just my opinion, i prefer *nix for serving because of its flexibility.

Basically how I feel about it for the most part. Security is my issue with IIS.

[Skeptical]

I've seen my share of mysterious IIS behaviors to know that you need to reboot the OS at least once a week or it'll go berserk. Asp sessions sometimes just go haywire and the only solution: reboot.

But IIS is okay... compared to MS DNS server. Now that's one piece of software I call "BAD". It doesn't have wildcard support for heaven's sakes! Which webmaster these days can live without wildcards? ;)

[Mr. X]

OTOH, an improperly *nix server is just as vulnerable as a Win2K one.

Ditto. Thats an excellent point.

CodeRed
Nimida


At work, we've been getting hammered by CodeRed from email etc, but not 1 system has been infected. Going back to my previous point, with proper administration (keeping a tab of security boards, making sure all IIS machines are fully patched etc), viruses like Nimbda arent going to do much damage, if at all.

I will however concede that IIS is a total pain in the ass to use i.e. having to babysit it all the time. But as I said, when it does imo IIS works amazingly well. Thats what Im getting at. Apache isnt all that different. I mean any good admin should monitor their server as much as possible, but with IIS its obviously more laborous. So back to my original post in this thread, it depends: If you dont plan on using ASP or anything related to MS site-wise, or dont want to use NT together, Apache is there for you, and while I dont use Apache much, it is an excellent webserver.

Then again, Im a GUI monkey. I hate working in Telnet, and to me, using Netmeeting or PCAnywhere or Citrix Metaframe is my idea of remote administration. Telnet or any console-like system with no mouse/fancy gui support is unbearable to me. Im too spoiled by NT/2K's GUI. I know I know it sounds really stupid. :)

Speaking of which, is there any chance of Apache having a GUI client? Totally optional of course, but I never did like having to mess around with the conf file doing all the main stuff in Apache.

[Hooper]

Mr. X,

A GUI monkey? Who said anything about running nix through telnet? You can of course but you can also use Windows Commander to run your nix server like another hard disk on a local machine. Doesn't get any better than that for me. I love it.

Remote Control.

[Mr. X]

Originally posted by Hooper
Mr. X,

A GUI monkey? Who said anything about running nix through telnet? You can of course but you can also use Windows Commander to run your nix server like another hard disk on a local machine. Doesn't get any better than that for me. I love it.

Not quite catching on here? Windows Commander? Is it something like Netmeeting etc..

If the latter I dont see what the connection has to do here. If not, my bad.

To me the whole point of telnet was to admin a nix system from somewhere else, console-wise. I know of programs out there (VNC iirc?) that are like Netmeeting, PCAnywhere etc.

I was talking about console-administration i.e. telnet etc. Personally Im not a fan of consoles, I prefer fancy shmancy GUIs from an Administrative point of view rather than text-based console only administration.

I know of some programs (Im assuming WC) that let you admin a nix box gui-wise but to me thats kinda pointless. Afterall the great thing about nix is that it doesnt need a gui to run, unlike NT (which I really wish had a console. The GUI for NT4 Server I believe took 12 or 16mb of Ram alone, which is uneeded as I never really sat in front of the server and administered it there, I had tools on my workstation across the building for that).

[Hooper]

Hmmmm.

Can't say iv'e seen a fancy shmancy IIS console. But Windows Commander (http://www.ghisler.com/) is an FTP client and a good one at that. It is a piece of software I have been using for years now. I use telnet also, but I use this for the most part.

Yes, I misunderstood what you were getting at I think. This is not a GUI for nix, this is a Commander.

What was your secret with detering the Nimda? Was the patch sufficiant?

[Dalius]

BACK TO TOPIC PLEASE
DAMNIT JEO

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Dalius
BACK TO TOPIC PLEASE
DAMNIT JEO

?? :confused:

You lost me there. Who is JEO? And who is off topic?

[Dalius]

Ok nvm lol

JEO = Joe = Mr X

[Mr. X]

Originally posted by Dalius
BACK TO TOPIC PLEASE
DAMNIT JEO

Im thinking he means me; my name is joe. And Im sorry, but I think what we are talking about here in a civil manner regarding IIS and Apache is information not only relavent to your post but good information to learn regardless. If you cant appreciate that I suggest you dont ask us for opinions and go somewhere else or find the information on your own.

Can't say iv'e seen a fancy shmancy IIS console

I wasnt referring to IIS itself, but to W2K. While nix is a fine OS and I plan on learning more about it, Im spoiled from using NT/2K's GUI, so to me setting up Apache, configuring it via that conf file (name is escaping me but iirc wasnt it called config.conf or something like that?) to include PHP extentions etc is cumbersome. I like point here, click that -kinda stuff.

What was your secret with detering the Nimda? Was the patch sufficiant?

Not just the patch. As I said we were getting Nimbda through Email etc, but we filter out attatchments so it wasnt able to propigate itself. Patching, monitoring, filtering ports, checking the security bulletins on Technet etc all helped us fight CodeRed. Its still a pain in the ass but so far we've been lucky.

There were some measures taken before I was hired, but when I came on board, all the servers, specially IIS were heavily secured down like all the other servers. Apparently some years ago some ex-employee on the MIS team didnt properly secure the NT/Novell servers and as a result, there were several pretty severe hack attempts in which the FBI was called in to investigate.

Nowadays, everything is damn secure left and right. Company protocol and all that fun stuff sometimes is a pain in the ass totally, but we gotta do it anyway.

Anyway to end this I'll say this:

IIS is great only if you invest effort in keeping it updated with patches, checking out security bulletins for any exploits etc. Any webserver software is gonna have holes. Unfortunetly IIS seems to have more holes in it than Apache ever will. However, imo I find it easier to setup and run than Apache.

If you DONT wanna pay server licensing costs, dont plan on using ASP anytime soon (which is really one of the few reasons we use IIS at work in the first place), Apache being free and greatly supported is an excellent alternative, if you dont mind working in Console alot, or editing files by hand without benefit of a GUI like in W2K etc.

[Hooper]

Mr X,

You are obviously and advanced IIS Admmininstrator. :)
I have Apache, MysQL, PHP etc... set up locally also. Actually, as far as PC's are concerned I am an old fashioned command line type guy from the early 80's. I guess that's why I don't mind console commands as much as some. I agree though, A nice winXP / Apache GUI does sound interesting albeit doesn't really go to well together in the same sentence. :D

[Mr. X]

Originally posted by Hooper
Mr X,

You are obviously and advanced IIS Admmininstrator. :)

I am?

I dont know what the deal is, but lately yesterday and today I've come across alot of sarcasm.. ;)

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Mr. X


I am?

I dont know what the deal is, but lately yesterday and today I've come across alot of sarcasm.. ;)


But I was serious....:confused: :D....Eh you probably didn't mean my post..... :p

[Mr. X]

Eh you probably didn't mean my post.....

damn you stop playing with me! :)

[Hooper]

Originally posted by Mr. X


damn you stop playing with me! :)

Lol..... You're loving it. ;)

[Mr. X]

Ok Dalius NOW you can complain about not being on topic.. :)

[Dalius]

Apache Owns, Im a noob, Installing Mandrake Tommorow
I'll keep everyone informed of my progress into teh world of

*drumroll*

TEH LUNIX!11

[Skeptical]

I lub Apache because I'm a customize freak. I lub taking apart the source code and add in little tidbits of my own. With IIS good luck!

Last thing I did with Apache? Coded mod_index so directory listings would spread across multiple pages, include headers/footers that reside in one central location rather than in every single directory (as Apache forces you with those HEADER/FOOTER files).

Ok now try doing THAT to IIS. Well I guess you can with those Isapi filters, but just learning that is a pain in of itself!

[menace86]

FREEBSD 4 LIFE!!

[Mr. X]

Holy old topic Batman!

[Hooper]

Dos/Win vs. Linux

Neither are secure. Linux is a bit more secure. So at the moment, the only secure server that I'm aware of is one unplugged sitting in a closet. The day the word "patch" ceases to exist, we will have came to the point of a true secure operating system. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Dos was alright but didn't do anything. Dos 2.0 - 5 helped me log into my first BBS boards. Dos 6 was a bit better. Windows 2 and 3 were almost as useless as dos. But hey, the hardware wasn't much more useful either. Wow. I can type a letter....whew...

Windows 95 crashed like a drunk driver. And speaking of drivers, I spent quite a bit of time trying to get drivers to work in 95. 98's blue screens of death showed it's pretty head the very day Bill launched it at it's grand opening. That should have told me not to buy it... but I did. The same thing that happened to Bill happened to me over and over. Thanks Bill.

Win ME...... Forget it. Not even worth these words.

Win2000..... Eh.... better than the rest of the above.

XP home and Pro. I have both.... What shall we say....

Benifit of the doubt... ok. It's better than it's predicessors. Now we can multitask. Or at least attempt it. Now instead of your whole machine crashing and having to do a hard boot, XP has made the way to close crashed applications. Wow. I still crash just like I always did, but now I can crash just one program at a time. Thanks Bill. I wish I had a dollar for everytime XP asks me if I wanted to report the errors to M$. Stick with Win2000 if you have it.


Linux:

Not perfect but a far cry from dos and windows hell. Yes, it helps to learn a bit with linux and if you already have all of your old dos commands in your head and how paths work.... heck, throw RedHat 8 on your old box and see which box crashes first. My guess will be your MS box. Yeah the NT kernal was better, but it still isn't in the running for an opsys that multitasks at a good speed, while not crashing when you are at critical points in your work.

XP is better than the past, but it still is a sucky operating system. If I could get a couple more needed programs to run under wine, I'de do away with MS altogether. Linux is plain fun.


My 2 cents. Yeah... Old topic. You would think Windows would be better by now :P

[Vile]

Webserver, Linux by far, but overall desktop OS = XP Pro.

[Skeptical]

:confused:

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/holythreadresbatman.jpg

[hypedave]

Originally posted by Skeptical
ass + backoffice + in the same sentence = Back Orifice != Tight Security => Jail House Rock => compromizing position = sore behind

Definitely not good.


lol thats a good one, I used Windows 2000 in my hosting facility for 2 years. You coudlnt get me and the staff to go near a linux box with a 10ft pole, well guess what our hosting facility is a 50/50 thing now, we are running Redhat, BSD and .Net now. But for someone just getting started I would say stick with Linux

[Hooper]

:rolleyes:

Use Linux to get started? Ugh.... Windows isn't hard to host off of. Linux can be a challenge at times. If you want the easy way to go, host with 2000.

[Paul J]

Originally posted by Dalius
Apache Owns, Im a noob, Installing Mandrake Tommorow
I'll keep everyone informed of my progress into teh world of

*drumroll*

TEH LUNIX!11

Typing like an idiot will only get you thoroughly backhanded by the linux community.

[Marco]

Linux.

Windows doesn't belong on a server... it should be crashing away on someone's desktop. period. :D

[bigmattyh]

Please let this thread die.

K? ThanX0r.