Server Software

[CoM_Solaufein]

Some time in the future I plan on building a server. I am debating on what software to use, cost being an issue. I am debating between Windows 2000 server edition and Windows 2003 server edition. Win2000 I can find cheap be it used or new. The question is, is it still a decent OS to use now. Security of course is something important. The main use of this server is to host my websites on it and a place to download files. I may have to install MySQL on it in case I decide to run a message board on it.

 

Is Win2000 still a valid OS to use or will I have to go for Win2003?

[Diamond]

Some time in the future I plan on building a server. I am debating on what software to use, cost being an issue. I am debating between Windows 2000 server edition and Windows 2003 server edition. Win2000 I can find cheap be it used or new. The question is, is it still a decent OS to use now.

And Linux/*BSD is not even an option? I understand, it involves some learning curve for someone who have never used UNIX, but the documentation is abundant on the topic in question. Especially, if the cost is an issue.

 

Security of course is something important.

OpenBSD, hands down. Some people though would find it more complicated than Linux (which is getting easier every year). Still, Linux is a good start too.

 

The main use of this server is to host my websites on it and a place to download files. I may have to install MySQL on it in case I decide to run a message board on it.

LAMP is pretty easy to set up these days, you can't go wrong with Debian-based Linux distributions. Installation of MySQL and PHP is actually harder under Windows. All you have to do in Linux is to tick them in the package manager.

 

Is Win2000 still a valid OS to use or will I have to go for Win2003?

My strong (and probably biased) advice is NEITHER, considering all the above and also the fact that Win2000 is no longer supported and Win2003 costs a bundle.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Diamond

[Darth Tratious]

i was gonna suggest OpenBSD Or NetBSD .i also heard FreeBSD Is pretty good for running a server and Apache/MySQL/PHP install

Edited August 3, 2007 by Darth Tratious

[CoM_Solaufein]

I'm a Microsoft fan so any OS on my computer will be from Microsoft. With Win95 being the exception, I have had good luck and pleased by their OSes. I know Win2000 some what since it was on the university's computers.

 

I don't know if I want to build one myself or I can have Dell build it to suite my needs. I went to their website and chose the options I would want and came up with it costing $1100.

[St_Jimmy]

I'm a Microsoft fan so any OS on my computer will be from Microsoft. With Win95 being the exception, I have had good luck and pleased by their OSes. I know Win2000 some what since it was on the university's computers.

 

I don't know if I want to build one myself or I can have Dell build it to suite my needs. I went to their website and chose the options I would want and came up with it costing $1100.

 

Please don't waste your money on a server solution by M$, use something linux or unix based, it's not extremely difficult to learn at all.

[Diamond]

I'm a Microsoft fan so any OS on my computer will be from Microsoft.

What is really sad is that you are so sure about MS server products because you do not know any better. What is even sadder is that you are not willing to change your position because you are "a fan".

 

 

Ultimately, bad decision.

[metadigital]

Windows 2k is a very solid product (much better than everything before it, and equal to everything up to Vista after it) and is (was) very popular with enterprise computing clients. 2003 wasn't more than a cosmetic upgrade, from memory, certainly you won't notice the difference I believe (though do some googling / wikiing for the differences so that you don't miss out on a feature that you really want).

 

It is certainly true, especially for the web, that *nix wins hands-down, though; the major drawback is that you will need to know how to configure the security after updating the kernel to the latest version.

 

Why don't you try a prototype build to see for yourself?

[Diamond]

It is certainly true, especially for the web, that *nix wins hands-down, though; the major drawback is that you will need to know how to configure the security after updating the kernel to the latest version.

I would like to point out that building a custom kernel is rarely needed. In fact, it is often recommended to stick to default kernel version that is shipped with the distribution. Security updates are be distributed automatically by the distribution vendor.

 

I am not quite sure what exactly do you mean by "configure the security" when it comes to the kernel. If I get you correctly, this is also a non-issue. Kernel upgrades do not affect user-space programs settings, and the kernel itself needs little configuration.

[taks]

one interesting difference is when installing nvidia video drivers. since kernel releases occur rather frequently (often with wildly incompatible changes), and nvidia does not release their source (at least, the last time i went through this they didn't), you have to rebuild the kernel with their "patch" in order to install drivers compatible with the kernel you're using (depending upon which driver you want to install and which kernel you currently have). of course, video drivers aren't that important for a server, so this is normally a non-issue.

 

taks

[Diamond]

one interesting difference is when installing nvidia video drivers. since kernel releases occur rather frequently (often with wildly incompatible changes), and nvidia does not release their source (at least, the last time i went through this they didn't), you have to rebuild the kernel with their "patch" in order to install drivers compatible with the kernel you're using (depending upon which driver you want to install and which kernel you currently have). of course, video drivers aren't that important for a server, so this is normally a non-issue.

 

taks

That's why I love Ubuntu. Restricted modules package gets updated along with the kernel, so nothing breaks.

[taks]

i went through the agony with fedora core 5. of course, i later discovered that release 5 was otherwise considered unstable, and i just happened to DL it during the tiny window in which it was actually available. i haven't ever gotten around to putting 6 on my system, nor do i think i will (i prefer linux to winders, but it is just not practical for what i do with my home computer any more).

 

taks

[metadigital]

It is certainly true, especially for the web, that *nix wins hands-down, though; the major drawback is that you will need to know how to configure the security after updating the kernel to the latest version.

I would like to point out that building a custom kernel is rarely needed. In fact, it is often recommended to stick to default kernel version that is shipped with the distribution. Security updates are be distributed automatically by the distribution vendor.

 

I am not quite sure what exactly do you mean by "configure the security" when it comes to the kernel. If I get you correctly, this is also a non-issue. Kernel upgrades do not affect user-space programs settings, and the kernel itself needs little configuration.

I was referring to the configuration process. People used to autosetup might find the initial setup a bit daunting.

[angshuman]

one interesting difference is when installing nvidia video drivers. since kernel releases occur rather frequently (often with wildly incompatible changes), and nvidia does not release their source (at least, the last time i went through this they didn't), you have to rebuild the kernel with their "patch" in order to install drivers compatible with the kernel you're using (depending upon which driver you want to install and which kernel you currently have). of course, video drivers aren't that important for a server, so this is normally a non-issue.

 

taks

That's why I love Ubuntu. Restricted modules package gets updated along with the kernel, so nothing breaks.

Plus, Lucian's building a server, so the standard open source X driver (nv) should suffice, and in fact be given preference over nvidia's closed package (assuming he intends to connect a graphical terminal to the server at all).