plusnplus Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Hi.., I want setup Web server - Apache. it is better in linux or windows? and can short explain why? thanks for any reply/ info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
premiso Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 It all depends on your needs. Windows costs a bit more then Linux (depending on the linux distro it may be free). Linux tends to be a bit more secure then windows. So the real question is, what are you needs? Do you need to be free? Or are you willing to spend the money on a Windows Machine. As far as I know Apache runs great on both, so either way it should work well for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Linux in general is probably a better choice of OS for a server. It's generally more stable, secure and was designed from the ground up with networking in mind. Apache also grew up within *nix, so is more suited to the environment and likely (I'm not 100% sure here, but would assume so) offers more modules on a *nix platform. Having said that however, if your not a Linux user you may take a little while to adjust so the costs may very well out way the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PugJr Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Although I've never tried hosting AMP on a Windows Server, only a windows home edition, it was much slower when accsessing harddrive which ultimately means a slower mysql. Also with Ubuntu Server I was able to obtain 512 MB more RAM. For some reason Windows didn't like my use of a third ram slot for whatever reason but Windows Server may have fixed these problems I've mentioned. I managed to reformat from Windows to Ubuntu 9.10 server and having it working which took me a Saturday and Sunday. Although I can't vouch that Linux or Windows is more secure than the other as my Windows server (Not server OS but treated as one) was only hosted locally and my Linux one is on the web but nothing has happened to it as of yet. Also, my Ubuntu server has yet to crash a single time. Personally if you have a DVD writer and a spare DVD writable, I'd go with Linux. (Ubuntu for the newbies, aka myself. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewdr Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Id go for linux too. I've had a lot of issues with a hosting co' who used windows with parallels. Specifically with file uploads, permissions and unable to delete/remove/rename files because some windows process had a lock on a file. Also, it is easier, in my opinion, to setup apache, ssl, mysql, php etc. on linux using the package manager (aka apt-get or yum). -steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerkintrigg Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 I DID go for linux and have not regretted it. It's a little tricky to learn the quirks, but I still think I made the right choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 My experience is that Apache randomly crashes less in linux than it does in Windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 My experience is that Apache randomly crashes less in linux than it does in Windows. Randomly crashes less? Ive had Apache running on several Linux servers without downtime in over 18 months. Apache has remained operational at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Windows: Maybe once every 3 or 6 months. Linux: Once maybe every 12 to 18 months. Stable. Yes. Still crashes though! Anyways my point is Linux is more stable so the OP should use that if it's an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 Ive never had Apache crash on me once configured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shlumph Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 I've never had Apache crash on me after being configured, ever. On any of my *nix servers in production, or on my windows development machines. I prefer Linux for web servers. You'll get more out of your hardware using a gui-less Linux server than a Windows server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.smith1981 Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Linux is allot more secure than Windows. If your concerning comparing using other services like the Firewall for example iptables (the linux RHEL family of distro's), its probably the best robust firewall for an Operating system, though getting your head around how it operates is quite complex, then learning how to apply it, certainly is allot more secure. When your concerning file permissions (windows overlooks this to quite an extent in the OS itself, where permissions is concerned with just networking nodes together with regards to windows). In Linux, you can set file permissions as: User: read, write and execute (not allowing a user original user who created the file, cannot execute the code written say in PHP) Group (anyone in the same group as the user who created the file, or can be set to another group altogether): the same permissions apply. Others (anyone else) so you can stop other users on the system accessing the file, but the same applies, if you want anyone to be able to access the file, but not write, or change it, then allow them to execute it. So if you left the execute part of php (if you have setup php properly on Linux), it wont allow the script to execute on a users permissions. But I mean you can have a server running for, like at work for example, our old servers operating system was running for 460 days without a restart and still had the same performance, asif it was a clean install, literally its that robust! You have to realise, Apache wasnt developed for windows initially, it was designed I believe on the Unix operating system (the predecessor to Linux), although its still used, but is charged for its usage, Linux itself is free, even RedHat Enterprise Linux is a free peice of software. With RHEL though (the above abbreviation), its the support package you pay allot for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 In reply to j.smith1981: Firstly, iptables is not just a RHEL piece of software. It is available within all distro's, and in fact has most of its code within the kernel itself. Secondly, windows permissions system (acl) is just as if not more robust than that of GNU/Linux. Most people just simply choose not to configure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmola Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Apache was written to run under unix, and takes advantage of the way unix is designed. For example, it has 2 fundamentally different ways of working -- prefork vs. worker. The windows version of apache is a port, due to the fact that windows threading involves a parent program that then spawns child threads, whereas unix is designed around processes and interprocess communication. The version of apache that provides the most flexibility then, is the unix version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simn_stv Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 took me about three days to get amp running on my linux system, but trust me it was worth the exercise, cos of the amount of stability and control i have...did i mention that the installations were from source ... so i'd go with linux (or any *NIX) as a preferred server OS anyday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.smith1981 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 In reply to j.smith1981: Firstly, iptables is not just a RHEL piece of software. It is available within all distro's, and in fact has most of its code within the kernel itself. Secondly, windows permissions system (acl) is just as if not more robust than that of GNU/Linux. Most people just simply choose not to configure it. Not being the one to argue at all here, really I am not, but I know that iptables isnt just for FC10, with iptables it works with Linux wide systems, I think from what I gather UNIX aswell (same platform Linux works under so to speak). Yes I am guilty of that myself not setting up ACL, every time I set something up with the reasonable permissions within folders or setting files up with limited permissions, I sometimes come across it being maybe breachable, like not allowing some random user to see a folder or file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.