Hello

I'm a newbie in managing servers.
I just want it to know what is the easiest opereting system to manage, Windows 2003 or Red Hat.

Thank you for your help

What is the application? Web hosting, hobby, etc?

I would say it's easier to manage a redhat server than a window server. There are a few server checklist somewhere in this forum. Use the search feature.

It really depends on which platform you are familiar with. What can be easy for a person can be nightmarish for another.

If your totally new you might need a sys admin to help you out but well I think you could probably weasel your way through windows (as just about every person and their dog knows atleast a little bit about windows) Sercurity wise though you'd be letting yourself down :(

Linux is definatly the better platform to go with if you understand it and can handle it but what good is a server you cant use is the question!

Why is Linux a better platform?

Normally (atleast for what my uses have been and from what i've heard) its better stability.

Thank you all for your replys.

I have a reseller account I jut need a server for streaming only and maybe putting few site there.
I know windows 2000/Xp I don’t know much about Windows 2003 or Linux

Well, it actually depends on the one managing it. My Linux server hangs more often than my Windows server and the thing is that my Linux machine is just running only things out of the box. As you know, I am more familiar with Windows than Linux (I have been struggling over 6 yrs now but still cannot understand Linux) thus the Windows machine is better managed than the linux.

My point is that both are stable as long as you work hard and ensuring they are all in tip-top condition. All servers come to you unsecured and one cannot assume that Linux is secure out of the box. It is actually quite vulnerable since you hear hacks of Linux servers.

Stick to what you know and are comfortable with and you do fine.

Windows 2000 and 2003 is the same for most of the interface, there are some changes too but I am sure that you can get on with it in no time.

its easier to make a mistake on a windows box. On linux the trick is learning how to do what you want and there is plenty of guides.

Just my opinion, windows might be *easier* to do some tasks but it is not easier in the long run.

Hey Jake, can you elaborate? How is it not easier in the log run? How is it easier to make a mistake on a Windows box?

its not easier to make a mistake and its easier to make a mistake since its so easy for most people to use. One common example is creating a ftp site in IIS and allowing anonymous connections with write access.

its not easier to make a mistake and its easier to make a mistake since its so easy for most people to use.

Jake, you seems to be contradicting yourself here. Well, human error is just human nature and it can apply to setting up any system with any operating system.

It is possible that with Linux with a control panel, you may have not set on or off certain switches and if you were to do it by hand, you may miss a step or two too.

It doesn't actually explain what you are trying to say. Well, the trick to Windows administration would also be to learn what you want to do and do it well.

The easiest OS to manage is the one you know. IF you know windows and what you want to do can be run on windows use that, if you know linux, use that. No matter what OS you choose you'll always run the one your familiar with better than one your not.

uhm my initial point was that making a mistake can be easier b/c one is very often overconfident in windows.

Ah, well the same can happen on a Linux system with an overconfident administrator.. It is often the simpliest things which we may overlook and that is because we are human and has nothing to do with the underlining operating system.

Thank you for your reply.

eddy2009 in one of your old posts you recommended a book from Charles Aulds (Linux Apache Web Server Administration) Can you suggest a book for Windows 2003. I'm very comfortable with Windows as a desktop operating system but I don’t know much about the server environment.

How does one connect to a server remotely? Is the interface the same as if the server was on my desk or do I have to learn something else like managing it with the command line or something? :)

Thanks

I am always a fan of Microsoft books ..

Try Windows Server 2003 Pocket Administrator from
Nelson Ruest, Danielle Ruest

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072229772/103-1839936-4727041?v=glance

or Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Administrator's Companion
by Sharon Crawford (Author), Charlie Russel, Jason Gerend
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735613672/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/103-1839936-4727041?v=glance&s=books

To manage a Windows 2003 server remotely is as simple as managing it locally.. You do not need to control it through command line if you do not want to. If you are equipped with Windows XP and above, you have a tool call 'Remote Desktop Connection' which allows you to log on to a remote server. Basically you have the full desktop on your screen and you control it visually like you do on a local machine, you can even mount your local drive to the remote server and install from there. Use the IE to surf the web and all that.. You can even mount your local printer and print from there but I have not done that yet..

I generally use this rule. If I am running ASP or ASP.net, run a windows server and if not, *nix based. However, you should use an OS you are comfy with.

I am running a hosting environment for my employer and we are a Microsoft Gold Partner. The hosting world is at theplanet (and our location too) and running Windows 2003. I have been very happy with the new version of Windows (there are bugs but they always will be). I am really forced to use Windows because we right asp.net applications. As far as webhosting goes, we are running Helm as the control panel. I think Helm is the best cp for Windows, but I know that even the crappiest Linux based cp seems to be better. Although, Helm supports IIS6 the control panel does not yet allow for the configuration of IIS6 "new" features that make the system so much better.

The new features in IIS6 make this webserver a true competitor with Apache. Microsoft has finally made a product that doesn't totally suck. However, if you do not use the new features you might as well be running IIS5. (bluck)

Here are some of the features you will want to take advatage of in IIS6:


Locked down Security out of box -- You can't even do asp without turning it on
XML configuration of websites | Easy website backup
Increased Reliability -- Worker Processes control websites -- before one dll handled the server and one bad coder could destoy webserver
Web Gardens!! Its a cluster of Worker Processes per site. Kinda like a virtual cluster
Kernel-mode caching
Multiple Application Pools (websites are assigned to pools) A poorly coded site can be placed in a dedicated pool so when it crashes it hurts only the members of that pool
Site Recyle - Sites can be restarted based on CPU utilization, memory requests, number of hits, on a schedule, and when a badnwidth is exceeded.
Edit Configuration while running without restart
Processor Affinity
IIS6 uses a low priviledge account


I would choose the OS you feel most comfy with or hire a server admin who knows what they are doing. You should factor in the asp or asp.net equation. If you are wanting a reliable server to host anything other than asp.new or asp.old then go with a Linux box (factor in comfy).

If I can do anything to help you, just holler.

if it's windows server you're gonna go with... PCAnywhere is pretty handy if you're more comfortable with GUI administration...

though i'm not sure whether windows dedicated hosts would provide something like that (probably if you send them the software, and for an extra fee, they'll install/configure it for you)... or of course you can always co-locate and setup your own server....

but personally, i prefer linux remote administration... because it's mostly text based... (and open source) so there's no proprietary formats for files or windows registry cryptic keys (*yikes*) that you have to mess with...

Why would you use a clunky interface like PCAnywhere when you have perfectly good remote admin tools like Terminal services built into windows to begin with?

Terminal services is at least 4 times faster than PC Anywhere is and not to mention much more secure.

When you know them both: RedHat I'd say.