brown2005 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I am looking at buying a dedicated server for my company and I was wondering which one would be better: Windows 2003 server or Linux server? Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I couldn't find it? forgot to ask why they are better as well? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per1os Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Linux all the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christophe Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 windows servers are easier to use but i personally go with linux everytime (because i know it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 The real answer is it depends. What is the server's role? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgmyr Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 How much do you want to spend per month? How much space/bandwidth do you want/need? What features do you want? What's the matter with just buying a big shared hosting package? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmanronald06 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 windows normally cost more than linux linux is more robust as a dedicated server as the command line is more powerful most server software (mail servers, ftp servers, etc.) are much easier to install/config/manage on linux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninjakreborn Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 In my opinion be careful about getting a dedicated server. Most of the time it's about what you need. If you have a very big, very important project (site, or application) that means a lot to you. Or if you have a BUNCH of stuff that you need, then go for dedicated or managed. (Or vps). However if it's a simple personal site, or small business site I wouldn't waste the money. Spending 100 dollars per month that won't even pay for itself. Generally if you are paying 20-100 dollars a month for a dedicated server it's not even really dedicated. The only exception is to have your dedicated server ON your computer, and run it, but then your computer has to remain on all the time, for it to be live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nameless12 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 In answer to the original question I think it depends on the technologies you are using I am going to assume a basic LAMP setup and i recommend linux because the L in LAMP means linux, most of the software you will probably be using will of been designed to work in linux if it is open source and will of been ported at a later date to windows, I dont know about you but I would prefer to run my software in its native environment. In my opinion be careful about getting a dedicated server. Most of the time it's about what you need. If you have a very big, very important project (site, or application) that means a lot to you. Or if you have a BUNCH of stuff that you need, then go for dedicated or managed. (Or vps). However if it's a simple personal site, or small business site I wouldn't waste the money. Spending 100 dollars per month that won't even pay for itself. Generally if you are paying 20-100 dollars a month for a dedicated server it's not even really dedicated. The only exception is to have your dedicated server ON your computer, and run it, but then your computer has to remain on all the time, for it to be live. I have been creating software to create webpages very quickly and this software has dependencies so i have two options. 1. find a host that meets my requirements and make sure to tell all my future clients about it 2. host it myself There may be a third option though and that is becoming a reseller for a hosting company you basically hire a dedicated server from them and you can sell off space to other people for as much profit as you want. I think this is what I will end up doing when my system goes Live because why I am familiar with linux\server configuration it is a hassle l would rather the hosting company had to deal with instead of myself as I have time that can be better spent elsewhere. When it comes to pricing I can see why you may think that and from a freelance point of view you may have a point but when it comes to working with and for small businesses or businesses in general the price is irrelevant. Most companies that build proper web pages already have servers and an internet connection at their disposal. And when it comes to people that just want to make one shit web page as their homepage If you provide the hosting for them you can get additional money by putting their webpage on YOUR dedicated server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 The only exception is to have your dedicated server ON your computer, and run it, but then your computer has to remain on all the time, for it to be live. ... and then run nothing else on it, else it wouldn't be a dedicated to something. So if he hasn't got a spare computer he would have to purchase a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neylitalo Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Well, I think the term "dedicated" server refers to the fact that there are no other users using the server, it's yours to do with what you will. You're right, though, you wouldn't want to use a server as a workstation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilis_money Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 to make it easier order it from ERIC a.k.a. thephpfreaks (LINUX). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinnoe Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Linux. Definitely not Microsuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 LINUX, windows may have issue supporting php. As according to godaddy.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgmyr Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 yeah...you shouldn't really go for windows unless your application requires it. and usually if you are using php you can get away with just about anything on a linux box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninjakreborn Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I recommend, and like Linux/Unix more than windows. However That is not true about windows not supporting PHP as well. If you have a windows system, and have Apache installed, with php/mysql installed, everything works the same. Except some file handling might be slightly different (some) as well as there are no permissions for the ftp (You can't set permissions in Windows. Other than that it runs primarily the same for PHP, I have also noticed (this might be co-incidence), but Linux and Unix servers tend to run considerably faster than Windows. I have noticed windows servers, and linux/unix seem to have differences in speed. There is one thing I like (ONE) about windows more than linux/unix. On windows, generally, when it comes to web hosting you can run .exe files. So for example, like there is a program called SAM Broadcaster, it can only be installed on windows. A lot of other stuff (hordemail), and others have EXE executables that "I think" can only be run on windows because they say windows system only, and some web hosts even let you execute exe files with there supervision, which can be very helpful if you are in need of some really high powered programs. The only other thing I like about windows, is if you get into remove desktop on your server (managed, dedicated or one you have full access to), I understand it better. I never owned a Linux/Unix system, I have a windows operating system for work on PC, however on a server I prefer linux/unix better, I also seem to get around a little better in there command line (Windows always makes me go slower). It's a toss up in the end. I would always go with Unix/Linux given the option but I wouldn't complain if windows was needed (as long as I could use Apache, I hate IIS with a passion I tried messing with it once before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 You can't set permissions in Windows. That is incorrect. Windows uses ACLs to control access permissions on files and folders, you need the NTFS filesystem though (which is, I think, almost always used though). If you have Windows XP Pro or MCE (Media Center Edition) then you have a GUI (it is there in Home when in safe mode as well though) to edit the ACLs: If the GUI is not available to you, then you will have to use the command prompt using the cacls command to edit and view it: At the command prompt, type: cacls /? to get a list of parameters and its syntax. I think cacls is short for "change access control lists". Here I have revoked my permissions resulting me in being unable to read from the folder: Since I haven't actually denied me access (but rather revoked my previous permissions resulting in "no permissions" for me) I can grant me full access again since I am an admin: cacls \test_folder /C /E /G "Daniel Egeberg":F /C ignores any "access denied"-errors (not possible if you are actually denied access (I think)). /E edits the ACL scheme instead of replacing it. /G grants a user a specific access flag (either None (can only be used when replacing using /P - ie not available here), Full control, Write, Read or Change (writing)). To deny me access I would run this command: cacls \test_folder /E /D "Daniel Egeberg" Or of course I could just use the GUI. To enable the GUI (which is by default disabled unless you are in safe mode) you go to Control Panel > Folder Options > Show/View (not sure what it is called in the English version) > Files and folders > Uncheck "Use simple file sharing (recommended)" (as previously mentioned it is only available in Pro and MCE). Files and folders can also inherit permissions. -- As for the OP: It depends on what you are using it for obviously. If you need a server to host the domain controller of a network consisting of computer running Windows then you will obviously need a Windows server. If you are going to use it as a web server, then I would personally recommend you to use a UNIX based server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninjakreborn Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Thanks for that advice, it was appreciated, thanks for the explanation as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 thanks for all the help. i have the following 3 operating systems to choose from. which one is best? Linux RedHat Enterprise 5 Linux CentOS 5 Linux Ubuntu 6.06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 which one to have? Linux RedHat Enterprise 5 Linux Ubuntu 6.06 Linux CentOS 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Whichever you are most comfortable with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Whichever you are most comfortable with. I have never used any. So any ideas would be most helpful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Linux is Linux so in some ways they are all mutch the same. However, some distros do provide better tools. I use Debian and am a huge fan of the package management system apt. Ubuntu is built from a Debian base and also uses apt, so yeah, out of those three (which by the way seems a very limited selection) I would recommend Ubuntu though Im really not sure Ubuntu is the best choice for a server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 anybody else that can help on which of these to choose: Linux RedHat Enterprise 5 Linux Ubuntu 8.10 Linux CentOS 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
premiso Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 RedHat has always treated me nice, but CentOS is a nice build too. Ubuntu is debian based, which can be easier to find/install packages via apt-get. So yea. No clue I am currently on Debian, which I love for my server. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zq29 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have a number of servers running Ubuntu, both production web servers and internal office servers, and have never had any problems - I run Ubuntu on my development machines too though so I am familiar with it. I second the praise of apt as well, very easy to use package manager. For example, if you want to install ImageMagick for image manipulation within your scripts you can install it by just typing the following: apt-get install imagemagick I'd imagine the other distros are similar though too, but I have no experience with them. 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.