Linux Red Hat or windows 2000

[Lil_Rob]

hi,
there is a web hosting company that gives you the choice of what software you site is run on either
Microsoft Windows 2000 server, or Linux Red Hat 7.2
is tyis normal practice and which one would you have your site hosted on Please
thank you
Paul

[ducktape]

yeah alot of hosts do that but most go with a linux based server. Being a microsoft product server 2000 is crap...hehehehe...and linux is alot more more stable

[cheatpark]

Well actually it depends. Generally windows 2000 is ----. :biggrin2: However, it depends what you want to use the space for. php scripts will run better on linux but asp scripts will run better on windows. It all depends what scripting you are using.

[Lil_Rob]

can i run asp scripts on linux? and which out of php and asp is btter e.g. can php do all the things asp can and more e.t.c.
hope that makes sense
thank you
Paul

[cheatpark]

php is far better than asp. You can sometimes run asp scripts on a linux server and vica versa. However, you should note that a linux server with asp installed will be slower than one without and the same for windows with php. I suggest you go with linux.

[vik13]

well, if you're looking for security, then stick to windows 2000. also, if plan to run any widows based scripts e.g ASP, VBSCRIPT etc. then stick to windows, but if you want to run cgi, php, and mysql, go with linux. and i would think that linux would be more stable since it shouldn't be running a windows system.. so yea, i would go with linux just for php and MYSQL :).

[cheatpark]

I thought windows had bad security.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by vik13
well, if you're looking for security, then stick to windows 2000. ROTFLMAO

There really isn't anything else to say. That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

If you want secuity, use *nix.

[vik13]

seeing as *nix systems are OPENSOURCE, you could easily find vulnerabilities in *nix software, where as someone would have to know binary to really find a exploit on a widows. this as been discussed already. search for it, you'll see many people have agreed with me..

[ducktape]

Originally posted by Bruce
ROTFLMAO

There really isn't anything else to say. That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

If you want secuity, use *nix.

I agree windows servers are a joke....hahahaha:D :D :D :D

[Haze]

Originally posted by vik13
well, if you're looking for security, then stick to windows 2000.

Uh, when did Hell freeze over? I can't believe I missed it! I have been watching the news. Argh.. we always get things months later in Australia!! GRRR!

EDIT:

I have had experience with both and would have to say that the open source part of Linux only helps secure it even more. Of course if the sys admin is incompetent ( much like my spelling ) then that is the biggest security risk there is. Other than that I really don't see where your coming from.

[Rick]

Microsoft is constantly pointing out little pinholes in linux security, while downplaying the gaping holes in windows security. Linux IS open source, so security flaws are quickly spotted and closed by the linux community... Usually the person that discovered the flaw will submit a patch for it at the same time.
Windows, on the other hand, is proprietary, so when a security hole is discovered, it must be reported to Microsoft, who will eventually get around to assigning somebody to look into it, meanwhile, the flaw is public knowledge and during the months it takes to build a patch, the hackers are having a grand old time exploiting the flaw.
For security stability, and heavy loads... Use linux. For fast asp applications, use NT

[Archbob]

Some hosts have a option of which platform, usually win2k is more expensive but it you want ASP hosting, you have to get win2k.

[cheatpark]

Originally posted by michael p bennett


I agree windows servers are a joke....hahahaha:D :D :D :D
Yeah apparently they are very vulnerable to very old viruses and some scripts can bring down a server very easily. I brought down a server just by editting a copy of phpbb by making something a comment so it wouldn't check if the config file was chmoded properly (because windows sucks and you can't change file permissions without going to your host). Anyway I installed the phpbb and logged in as admin. The server came back and a few hours later I logged in as admin on phpbb and the server went down. This happened a few times until I realised it was phpbb which was messing up the server. I now conclude that windows has crap security and is very vulnerable.

[Lil_Rob]

hi the site is going to be a fansite and i will only be running things like a chatroom and maybe a forum along with the usual photo galleries so should i go with linux?

[F1RULZ]

Yeah, I would, much better all round (at least in my opinion it is) :)

[Lil_Rob]

hi
thanks everyone for your help :-)

[ducktape]

just go with linux

[Todd]

As fun as it may be to jump on the Microsoft bashing bandwagon it does have some good things. For one their systems always integrate with other Microsoft products very nicely and because Microsoft has such wide spread support among most consumers that integration greatly benefits them. For example if you wanted a streaming media system Windows Media Server is apart of Windows 2000 server I do believe. Where as you would have to pay thousands for RealServer for the same capability. Another example is ASP - yes there are alternatives which may or may not be better depending upon the programmer. Yes, there are other ASP solutions but they probably won't behave in the exact manner as they would on a Windows system.

Now with that said yes personally I'd say go PHP, try Darwin streaming server instead of Windows Media Player, and so on. However, you shouldn't simply discontinue Microsoft products because they are made by Microsoft. vik13 is absolutely correct that because Windows isn't open source it's not technically as easy to find new security holes. However, that goes back to the saying security through obfuscation isn't real security.

I'm just about done with my little rant but I want you to keep one other thing in mind. If the companies in charge of these Windows servers simply applied the patches when Microsoft released them then Microsoft probably wouldn't have such a bad reputation. If anything it's to user friendly and as a result small companies often don't hire a true systems administrator to keep it running properly.

I don't hear people running Linux sucks when the zlib vulnerability came out, nor did I hear people shouting drop OpenSSH when the off by one error came out. Every piece of software will have its problems eventually, judge the company based on how they respond to the problem. I've personally reported a security issue to the Microsoft team and they responded very quickly to my message.

Now that my rants done I'll return this thread to it's original topic. :D

If you don't need any Windows specific features and you're looking for a choice between Windows and Linux choose Linux.

To everyone else, don't be so quick to judge without considering the whole situation. I'm not a big Microsoft fan by any means but I do get sick of seeing people hate Microsoft only because it's the popular thing.. Rant done. :)

[vik13]

thank you todd.
*mentions php FILEUPLOAD vulnerbality*
:D

[Todd]

Sure thing vik13. I have to apologize to Lil_Rob for the rant on his thread.

For my simple answer to your question it's generally best to choose Linux if you don't have any specific windows requirements. This is just my personal opinion and no OS is definitely better then the other. It all depends on how the server is managed and secured.

Regarding my rant, I just want to make it clear that I'm not a big Microsoft fan but rather I just hate to see a company get tore apart for the wrong reasons. Code Red is a perfect example; if the administrators just patched their systems everything would be fine. Many didn't however and Microsoft had days of bad press as a result. If you want to hate them for anti-competitive practices or other reasons feel free but let's not judge a company for the wrong reasons.

[Webdude]

http://worldzonesupport.com/test.asp

Oh wow...ASP on a Linux machine! What was that advantage you said Windows had? :D

[roly]

Webdude just showed us that Linux is the best of both worlds:)

GO LINUX

[Daniel]

Yet it's only apache:asp. Most of the 'good' features in ASP are now gone down the drain, might aswell use php :p

[Webdude]

Originally posted by Daniel
Yet it's only apache:asp.

Nope, guess again...

[guitarnerd]

I will admit, linux is better for a server, but, I really wish windows took over in that field

[Todd]

Originally posted by Webdude


Nope, guess again...
ChiliSoft ASP, a great product but it's not on FreeBSD yet. ASP is only one of the Microsoft technologies, if you read my whole post you'll see that wasn't the point. The point was people blame Microsoft for bad security when it's usually always the system administrators that didn't patch their systems. If I were to exploit OpenSSH on a Linux system does that mean Linux sucks? Of course not, but that's exactly how people blame Microsoft.

I don't run a single Windows server and don't have any immediate plans to so it's not that I'm a Microsoft supporter it's just that I hate to see Microsoft bashing for the wrong reasons. The same way I would hate to see someone blame General Motors for producing cheaper cars then Lexus and as a result there are more cars to cause traffic jams.

[cheatpark]

Originally posted by Webdude
http://worldzonesupport.com/test.asp

Oh wow...ASP on a Linux machine! What was that advantage you said Windows had? :D
Asp runs faster on windows and php runs faster on linux. When I posted in this thread a while back I said it depends on what scripting you are going to use. Like todd I am not a microsoft supporter but I gave both points of view. So the advantage windows has is that asp runs faster and it runs better with more features. The same goes with php and linux or *nix servers.

[Todd]

Well said cheatpark, also note that although there may be ASP support on Linux I doubt it's 100% identical to the Microsoft version. Checking ChiliSoft's forum I see it does have missing features: http://www.chilisoft.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=133

I'm sure they will take care of this and I do hope they release it for FreeBSD as well because it is a great solution to ASP on non-Microsoft systems. ASP is only one example; I'm sure with Microsoft's .NET push we'll see more and more technology designed to only work on Windows servers / IE browsers which is a shame.

I'm all for wide spread support of software across Windows/Linux/Solaris/*BSD/BeOS/OS X/and any others I may have left out but lets face it each OS has its strength and weaknesses and you shouldn't bash a specific one just for the sake of bashing them.

[ducktape]

both points of view

Linux- reliability, scalability, ASP, Apache, Free, Open Source, Unlimited Users, Shoutcast Streaming (FREE),

Microsoft- Instability, Hackability, Crashability, Crapability, ASP, Bill Gates, $$$$$, Thats all they care aboutability, You want our source?? yeah right ur not getting that even if we are told to release it in court, Seperate Licenses, WMA Streaming,

Anyone else have anything to add? I just scratched the surface.


I really have nothing against Microsoft. I like their products if it wasnt for windows (which I'm using right now, XP) alot of ppl prolly wouldnt be hear today including myself. But they need to quit cramming their products down the consumers throats. Like if you open outlook express it opens Windows Messenger and you cant close it until you close OE. And they shouldnt be regulated by the gov't but if the government doesnt do it microsoft sure wont.

[cheatpark]

I think thats kind of biased what you just said. Its a one-sided argument which you are putting and that is not fair.

[Todd]

I removed my last post as cheatpark covered it.

At least be fair we you evaluate the operating systems or else it appears as though you are a troll waiting for a bite.

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by michael p bennett
both points of view

Linux- reliability, scalability, ASP, Apache, Free, Open Source, Unlimited Users, Shoutcast Streaming (FREE),

Microsoft- Instability, Hackability, Crashability, Crapability, ASP, Bill Gates, $$$$$, Thats all they care aboutability, You want our source?? yeah right ur not getting that even if we are told to release it in court, Seperate Licenses, WMA Streaming,

Anyone else have anything to add? I just scratched the surface.

Incorrect ... linux actually has 1 or 2 more holes than windows 2000 !!!

I read that online somewhere !! suck it .... the only there are so many windows haters ... are the way microsoft has gone about windows .... however you'll see some nice changes now they care alot more about their buyers ...

Now if you wanna talk about something funny talk about AOL TimeWarner buying Red Hat to spite microsoft :biggrin2:

Windows has abit 30 or so security holes .... linux has 2 more ... :)

IF you say i'm lying ... then i suggest you re-think .. i've been in the business for over 2 and half years PURE computers .... i know what i'm talking about ... i've used both Linux and Windows

FreeBSD / Red Hat / Slackware / Windows NT 3 , 4 / Windows 2000 / Windows XP / Windows 3.1 / Windows 95 / Windows 98