What is the best OS for a server

linux

    Next

  • 1. Socket API specifics (was Real-Time UDP non-blocking sockets in Linux)
    On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:08:42 +0000, Rick Jones wrote: > I'm not sure I agree that a sendto() should block waiting for ARP > resultion, but then I'm not completely one with the tao of linux :) > Why do you believe that a sendto() should block for the duration of > ARP resolution? By analogy with send() on a TCP socket, which blocks until (the sent part of) the message was acknowledged by the recieving host. That by definition includes any resolution delays for intermediate protocols. It would be consistent for sendto() to behave as close to the same as possible. -- Some say the Wired doesn't have political borders like the real world, but there are far too many nonsense-spouting anarchists or idiots who think that pranks are a revolution.
  • 2. Controlling a modem from minicom
    Hi Folks, I am able to use kppp to dial and connect to an ISP . There is even an associated script window that shows the Hayes commands that are being sent to the modem , AT, ATDT etc. What I actually wanted to do was send commands to the modem manually so I called up minicom. I can pull up Ctrl A -Z, but that is it. The screen that says, 'Welcome to minicom 2.00.0' has what looks like a cursor in the form of a black rectangle. However you cannot type anything at this prompt. I thought it was here you could type AT etc ? Or is there something I am missing. That's the modem to OS side. On the modem to ISP side, when kppp dialed and connected, kppp gave a 'deamon died unexpectantly' - exit status 1 message. Some details OS - Redhat 7.3 Modem - Conexant HCF 56k Data/Fax/Voice/Spkr Driver hcfpcihw How can I issue manual commands to the modem (through minicom ?) and why did kppp give an error message when connected ? any help appreciated thanks David
  • 3. nfs-root: strange library problem
    I'm setting up a diskless client by getting the kernel via PXE and root fs via nfs from a linux server. But after the nfs mount the kernel does not start init. When I substitute the init (standart red hat 9 /sbin/init) with a statically linked init then init gets startetd! But everything else fails (everything else is still dynamically linked). I don't see where the problem could be since in the root nfs there is a copy of a complete root fs of a redhat 9 install, including /lib /bin /sbin /dev and so on. what could be missing? If I make a chroot to the client nfs-root directory on the server I can execute for example bash without problems. What could I try next?

What is the best OS for a server

Postby Gabriel Knight » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:46:02 GMT

Hi all

what is the best operating system for a server?
it has to be able to be as a web server and use SSH (secure shell) and used 
for backup of data.
I know of fedora11 and centos but I dont know of the best os to use.

Regards
GK



Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Joe » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:06:17 GMT



RedHat (CentOS is identical, except the logos), Suse and Debian 
Stable.

My preference is for RH/CentOS.

-- 
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the 
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Dan C » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:31:40 GMT




Linux.


OK.


As I already said, the best "OS" is Linux.

If you mean best "distro", I'd say Slackware.

Fedora would be near the absolute bottom of any list of acceptable 
distros to run a server on.


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project:  http://www.**--****.com/ 

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Freeballer » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:39:19 GMT




wow. scary I have to agree on one of your statements. Fedora is near the 
bottom. Depending on your linux knowledge, if any, may dictate what 
distro you want. Always look into security afterwards anyways, but all 
distros have server packages. I would simply say, given my experience 
use debian or ubuntu. Since it has a simple, effective package 
management called "apt-get", there is also mandriva or suse but honestly 
I've never liked those. Slackware is a purist distro, very close to unix 
and very little changes but finding packages involves resolving 
dependancies (even with linuxpackages.net)

Not trying to steer your way to one or the other, there will be alot of 
reasons why some use one or the other. Choices, preferances.. I'd say 
try ubuntu if your a total newb or debian if you have some skills 
already... or use the alternative ubuntu cd (server) iso. These come 
with simple installation with no user interface I beleive.

Good luck buddy, I hope you find one thats useful. goto 
www.distrowatch.com to get some more links and that sort

-- 


==

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby markhobley » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:03 GMT



I have heard this too, but have not tried it. Debian used to be really 
good, however I had a couple of problems during upgrades, and some bugs 
have crept in on Lenny. If I had my time over, I would try Slackware.

Mark.

-- 
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818   http://www.**--****.com/ 


Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Aragorn » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:01:36 GMT

On Sunday 11 October 2009 06:46 in comp.os.linux.networking, somebody
identifying as Gabriel Knight wrote...


Anything UNIX-like, and preferably GNU/Linux. ;-)  FreeBSD, NetBSD and
OpenBSD are also very good, and then there's OpenSolaris, of
course. ;-)


All of the above can do that effortlessly. :-)


They are the same operating system, and in the event of the two you
mention here, they are even related, as Fedora is the "perpetual beta"
for RedHat Enterprise Linux, and CentOS is the "free" version of RedHat
EL.  It's the same distro, but with different "branding". ;-)

That said, among GNU/Linux distros, RedHat/CentOS, Debian and Slackware
are most commonly touted as stable server-oriented distributions.  If
you're serious about the server concept - in terms of uptime and
stability, et al - then you most definitely want to avoid bleeding edge
distros.

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby General Schvantzkoph » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:50:55 GMT




CentOS is usually is the best choice unless it won't run on your 
hardware. If you are using server hardware then you won't have any 
trouble, if you are running recent desktop hardware there is a good 
chance that CentOS doesn't support it. RHEL, on which CentOS is based, 
uses a very old kernel. RH targets RHEL at the server market so they 
don't seem to put a lot of effort into back porting drivers for desktop 
hardware which means that it can take a very long time before support for 
new hardware shows up in RHEL and then into CentOS. The only way to find 
out is to try and install CentOS, if it works then you are done if not 
then you need to consider alternatives.

Fedora is actually a pretty good server OS as long as you are using it on 
a small number of machines. When you run a machine as a server you don't 
use X and you don't use most of the GUI applications that tend to get 
broken in Fedora. What you are running is the kernel, which is always 
stable, a shell and a tiny number of programs like ssh and maybe Apache. 
All of those tend to be rock solid even on Fedora. Fedora 11 also comes 
with the latest version of KVM which is working really well for Linux 
clients. If you need to run some commercial software that needs RHEL 
compatibility, and the Fedora compatibility libraries aren't good enough, 
you can run a CentOS5.3 KVM virtual machine on top of Fedora 11. I've 
found that the performance of CentOS VMs on Fedora 11 is within a couple 
of percentage points of native. The big problem with Fedora as a server 
OS is the huge number of updates and the limited support period. While 
RHEL and CentOS are supported for 7 years, Fedora is only supported for 1 
year. A CentOS system has a few megabytes of updates per month, Fedora 
has hundreds of megabytes per week. A CentOS system can be installed once 
and then left there until the hardware dies. If you install Fedora you'll 
have to install it's successors once a year. If you have a small number 
of machines, half a dozen or less, then this actually isn't a very 
onerous task. If you have hundreds of systems then this becomes an 
impossible task which is why you'll never find Fedora inside of any large 
companies.
 

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Maxwell Lol » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:53:31 GMT

"Gabriel Knight" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


Many people like the bsd variants (ducks).

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby ray » Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:57:59 GMT




'Best', according to what criteria? I'd use Debian stable.

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Leon Whyte » Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:54:27 GMT



IMHO the best and easiest is Slackware.
It is the easiest to manipulate to your liking and follows closest to Unix.
During install you have a good opportunity to leave out what you don't need or want.
I think I have tried most of the major Linux versions.


-- 

A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
< running Linux >

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Keith Keller » Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:58:33 GMT





Slackware == awesome

However, I am not sure I would recommend Slackware to someone new to
linux for a public-facing server in a production environment.  It's
perfect for an experienced admin for almost any scenario, and it's also
perfect for a new admin looking to learn linux in a non-mission critical
environment.  But if this is going to be a trial by fire where you might
get fired if you can't get things going quickly enough, a more
''friendly'' distro like CentOS might be better.  (Then put Slackware on
a spare box so you can learn to know what you're doing better.)

--keith

-- 
 XXXX@XXXXX.COM 
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ= http://www.**--****.com/ 
see X- headers for PGP signature information


Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby goarilla@work » Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:09:54 GMT





don't dismiss opensolaris or freebsd for a zfs fileserver
or openbsd for a shell server


Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Wanna-Be Sys Admin » Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:42:29 GMT




There is no best OS, any of the Linux dists can accomplish the exact
same things, especially in a server environment (runlevel 3).  So, use
whatever you want.  Personally, I use CentOS, but I also manage
hundreds of servers with CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, RHEL, and so on.  Any
are fine, use the one you know best.
-- 
Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Wanna-Be Sys Admin » Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:44:44 GMT




True.
 

True, but consider that issue regarding any dist out there.  No one
"new" to Linux should be running a publicly accessible web server.  If
it's not hooked up to the Internet, then it doesn't matter, but
otherwise it's something none of us want to think about.
-- 
Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.

Re: What is the best OS for a server

Postby Wanna-Be Sys Admin » Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:45:20 GMT




I would have recommended OpenBSD/FreeBSD, but since this is a Linux
group...
-- 
Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.

Similar Threads:

1.Why linux is better as a server OS

Fellow advocates,

In the case of my work place, this is why Linux made a huge difference
to our business:

1) TCO, the TCO for us (from w2003) dropped faster than a tarts
   knickers. We must have saved a small fortune moving Sybase
   over. This is why MS are shitting themselves about Linux.

2) Script-ability, w2003 is useless if you want to extend its
   functionality quickly. Simple things like archiving dumps was a
   chore. What in gods name did MS think it was doing with their
   'services' technology?

3) Speed, our users actually congratulated us after the transition
   thanks to speed ups in some places being clearly noticeable.

4) Interoperability with our Solaris cluster. NFS is such a useful
   technology and yet so simple and easy to setup and secure. Unix
   servers will just sit and chat happily all day.

5) The big one for us; reliability. It may have been a poorly set up
   Windows box but the thing was down more often than I can bare to
   think about. As soon as friday afternoon came round (our busiest
   period network traffic wise) we would all cross our fingers and
   hope. Now I could probably play quake on the server at that time
   without our users having any problems!

Doc
-- 
Brought to you by Doc Bosh

2.Which is the better Server OS

Which UNIX offering from SCO is typically used as a web/internet server? 
OpenServer or UnixWare?


3.Internet Professionals Choose Windows Server 2003 As the Best OS.

4.[News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

5.Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

On Mar 5, 9:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
>  wrote
> on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
> <5uyzj.114546$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:
>
>
>
> > * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> >> [Linux]
> >> 1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  .00
>>>>> 2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  .00>
>>>> 3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  .0>
>> >> 4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  .>0>>> >> 5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  >0>>
> >> 6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  gt;.>>
> >> 7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  >0>>0
> >> 8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3 >gt;>00
> >> 9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1  > >>.00
> >> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2 > >>0.00
> >> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3> >>.00
> >> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core > >> .00
> >> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core>5>>  .00
> >> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Cor> >>   .00
> >> 15. Upgrading to Fedora   > >>    .00
> >> 16. Upgrading to Fedora  > >>8    .00
> >> 17. Anti-virus (none)   > >>      .00
> >> 18. Anti-spyware (none)> >>       .00
> >> 19. System repair soft>a>> (none) .00
> >> 20. Firewall (iptable>:>>ree)     .00
> >> Ten-year Total      > >>          .00
> >> Freedom                 >  > >    Priceless
>
> > You left out your time.  Linux is free only if>yo>r>time is free.
>
> > You see, Microsoft would have you count as money>t>e time you spent
> > installing Linux, when you could instead hav> b>en jacking off.
>
> Indeed.  And since every installation ta>es an hour, the 16
> installations above would cost $3200 t>tal (at $200/hour)
> -- which would have been more than eno>gh for a nice copy
> of Microsoft Office, plus a number of >attes at the lo>al>
> coffee shop.
>
> Even if one assumes half that amount, $1>00 could still buy
> a nice retail copy o> Microsoft Office.
>

Well it looks like Homer is going back at least 10 years.  According
to Ray Lopez 0.999, it costs $75/year for antivirus software on
Windows.  There's $750 right there.  Now of course Ray doesn't always
get things right...But my point is that over the last 10 years,
maintaining a typical Windows installation is going to cost you.
Hardware upgrades, for one thing, Linux can keep using that old
hardware longer than Windows can, unless you still run Win 98 that
is.  And we know what the "Vista ready" certification is worth.  Also,
how many times do you have to have your Windows machine dewormed over
10 years?  The average customer has certainly spent some time=money on
that.  In fact, a lot of people just throw the old machine out when it
"starts to run sluggishly" or gets an infection so far in the registry
that their local computer guru can't get it out.  Yep, a lot of costs
there, when you start to count a person's time...


6. [News][TF] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

7. [News] Good Ubuntu 9.04 Reviews -- Called Better Than Vista 7 & Mac OS X

8. Why I am a good mark for the trolls



Return to linux

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guest