Well, I am looking ahead a bit, and my question to you people is what will be the MAIN OS for hosts to use on their boxes, like Redhat is the most commonly used one today.

What will it be?
Still RedHat, maybe Windows, or the new FreeBSD?

Redhat all the way if they can keep their par.

I would say RedHat/Windows. Microsoft will always be there and a lot of new people sign up for windows just becaue they know it.

So you end up with a mix between the two.

New people may signup for hosting from a windows server because they use it on their home/work desktops, but with my knowledge of the hosting industry, a hosting company's os's aren't chosen by the user. Redhat will pwn the indrustry.

RedHat certainly has a large chunk of the market, and that will only grow in my opinion. There are always those smaller groups of people that favor their own flavor though. It will be interesting to see how *nix does match up against Windows in the future.

Redhat hands down. If they keep developing their Operating Systems, they will keep their value.

My .02.

-DS

Actually, you are wrong in regards to who chooses the OS. It is a hands down value of supply and demand.

If customers want windows, windows it will be, if customers want *nix, *nix it will be.

Customers don't choose, they demand, correct?

Customers don't demand. If you don't have what they want, they just go somewhere else.

Supply and demand as it is called. Demans = how many people want it. Supply = how much is available.

Basic marketing.

lol, ok.

I don't think there will one main hosting platform but rather certain products dominating particular market segments or application specific areas.

Different people have different needs and there is no one OS which satisfies everything for everyone. I believe it would be the same as it is as in the future. You probably see *nix, Windows, Mac and whatever OS being deployed as they satisfy their own segment of the market. The usage ratios may change over time but there will always be some competition somewhere around. It is a free market and it would always be as it was.

We are yousing redhat 9.0 and it is very stable. All our clients are satisfied and we don't plan to change it untill this verion is supported by redhat team. We don't have problems and the uptime is 99.9%. This uptime can't be reached with plain windows box

It will be Windows Longhorn, as they gets more and more stable and absorbing more and more of the advantages of Linux, I really have no doubt Windows will be dominant OS. Unless govt regulations dictate otherwise.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

That is my response....................

what do you mean stable? all windows machines are very unstable and you neeed far more resources if you want to have good performance

Now I disagree with all windows machines being unstable and needing far more resources.

They just require more admin time.

But I don't think windows longhorn is the solution.

Originally posted by webhostec
what do you mean stable? all windows machines are very unstable and you neeed far more resources if you want to have good performance

Did you actually use Windows 2003 to back your statement ?

I don't think there is reason to use windows 2003. I'm using Linux everywhere (sometimes FreeBSD also) and I'm happy with this. No problems. Also I can't change the OS everytime something wrongs goes with the machine. M$ doesn't provide good support. They don't fix the bugs on time. The open source community provides the best support. Bugs are fixed for less then 24 hours. Can you say this for M$?

If you have not used Windows server then you do not have the evidence to say that the Windows server is unstable. Those of us who do knows how stable and secure it is.

Microsoft does provide regular bug fixes and if there is an emergency patch, it would be made available right away through Windows Update.

There is no need to change Windows since there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

Next time if you want to place a loaded statement, make sure that you have some evidence to back your statement or else how could we take you seriously ?

I completely agree with Eddy. 95% of the problems we have faced with our windows servers were not software related, but hardware.

We have had servers running 30+ days without reboots and then only reboots due to security updates.

I have 6 Linux server all run at redhat/ fedora.

2 Windows server 2003.

2003 is stable now , but you must need your admin to know hot to config security setting....etc.

remember any os , you must install firewall program , for windows , you must install anti-virus program too.

Just said something windows can do and linux can't .

Now some cp use IIS for webserver , and some provider will install php , mysql/mssql , and IIS support ASP /ASP.net ... also you can install JSP in windows also..

So the main point is some customer will run their asp/asp.net + access db , this is main point for hosting to provide , asp in linux i know it can run stable , but you can get with access db or ado.net connection.

True, I did have Windows servers going on for over 30+ days too, I believe approaching close to 45 or so days since the last reboot to security updates and nothing to do with the server crashing. Everything else works like a charm.

Now if they would just fix security updates forcing reboots windows wouldn't be as bad. ;)

I have what to say but I prefer to stop here.

Everyone has the right to use what he wants and if you're happy with windows - use it I don't care ;)

I am not arguing about your choice but I just cannot accept your statement that Windows is unstable when you have not used it. That's all I am saying. I have nothing against anyone using any other OS.

Same here. We use both.

I fully agree with Eddy. Until you have administrated it and know it, you can't make statements like that.

All OS'es can be unstable with the wrong admin at the helm.

For windows , you must know the news for virus and more info , because more virus is come from MS windows....

and if you need to use windows server , buy hardware firewall at same time.

I love Windows & linux.....at my business...bsd also...

bash-2.05$ uptime
4:17am up 324 days, 5:25, 2 users, load average: 0.46, 0.40, 0.31
bash-2.05$ uname -a
Linux plain.webhostec.biz 2.4.20-19.7 #1 Tue Jul 15 13:44:14 EDT 2003 i686 unknown
bash-2.05$ last | grep -i crash | wc -l
0
bash-2.05$ last | grep -i reboot | wc -l
1

no comment :)

hej this just point me an idea to put this statistics online :) 10x guys :)

Dear Webhostec,

Apparently you might not have understood what we are telling you.

What we are saying is that we do not disagree that Redhat is a good OS or that it would perform. Gee, I was the one who posted that each OS has their place in the market.

All we are saying is that you cannot say that Windows is unstable if you have never tried it. You cannot say that Microsoft don't provide good support and do not provide fixes on time when you have never experienced it.

Of course, if you tried it before and it fails you then yes, I will respect your opinion. But you did mentioned that you never tried it and claims to have first hand knowledge that it is bad which does seems strange to us.

It is like you say McDonald's Big Mac taste horrible and it gives you tummyache when you have not tasted it before.

The reasons why we do not have 300 odd days of uptime is because Microsoft has been very prompt in providing updates and fixes and each time you get the patches, you most likely need to reboot. If not for Microsoft committment to coming out with patches, we probably should be able to keep our Windows 2003 server up without reboot for just as long as you.

Please, I beg you, next time when you comment on something, make sure you have experience first so as to give your comments some grounding.

I know you like Redhat passionately and intimately and I respect you for that. Just when you comments on something, make sure you know what you are talking about or else it is difficult for people to view your comments with conviction.

k, so we like Redhat but what is to come of FreeBSD? I thought it had pretty good security. It could improve over the years also, soo...

If I haven't updated my servers they can't have this uptime. One interesting part in linux systems is that they don't need to be rebooted if you update them.

Another thing is that I have BIG expirience with windows till 2k. I haven't expirience with 2003 only. But I have also experience with a lot of other commercial OS like AIX,Solaris,HPUX and other free OS like FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I know what I'm talking about.

FreeBSD is very good OS. I like the ports section. About security - it depends on the administrator. Only OpenBSD comes with no remote security hole with default instalation over the years. You can check their site. FreeBSD has very different architecture and it has a slower development but this has a good sides because the patches are tested better.

Originally posted by webhostec
I know what I'm talking about. Everyone claims that so I guess everyone does, correct?

If you haven't work with different operating system can you know what you're talking? Let's say you're using only windows and say windows is perfect. You can only tell that something is good if you have worked enough with and you know everything about it. I just want to tell that I have experience with more operating systems not only Linux.

BTW I'm far away of telling that Linux is perfect. But it is opensource and you can do whatever you want and if you don't like it you have the freedom to make it better (of course if you know how and if you have time which is a problem)

I have never said that Linux or other OS is bad. I am just saying that Windows 2003 is radically different from the prior version of Windows and it is extremely stable on its own right.

Ok maybe you're right. I realy never used it and what I'm telling is based on the previous versions of windows.

There was a point earlier this year where Microsoft was releasing almost daily patches till people said that that was too much so now they are streamlining it to once a month unless it is extremely crucial.

If buy a TV and you need to change it 10times a day because it doesn't work do will you like it? M$ release their software with a lot of bugs. Let's say this is normal - no one is perfect. The main problem with M$ and patches is that if someone submits a bug to a M$ they need more than 6 months sometimes to fix it. Of course this bugs are not public but if someone "evil" finds the bug he can use it before M$ submits the patch. Check http://www.securityfocus.com/ for more information.

Hmmm, and you were saying that with Redhat when they issue security updates and kernel updates, they are not the same as Microsoft issuing updates ? No one say that you need to change your Windows 10 times a day. You just update it like you update your Linux server.

One moment you claim that Microsoft is not coming out with patches fast enough and when I told you that they do, you now change your stand to say that they are releasing too many patches. So what is it ?

Anything as large as Windows would bound to have bugs, Linux itself is not bug free but Microsoft is willing to work on the bug fixes and release them as soon as it is tested and made available.

I like Microsoft's closed code since it means that no one would be able to know how the codes are written and there is some protection there. With Linux, everything is open-source so as easy for someone to create bug fixes and enhancement, someone which bad intention could see the codes in broad-daylight and exploit it. With the millions of lines of codes, it is easy to miss the vulnerability.

I am not saying that Linux is bad but just the fact that nothing is bug-free. What is important is the committment to fix the problems.

Originally posted by eddy2099
One moment you claim that Microsoft is not coming out with patches fast enough and when I told you that they do, you now change your stand to say that they are releasing too many patches. So what is it ? I found that statement hilarious.

Ok lets say the difference:

1. You only need to reboot the server if you update the kernel (VERY RARE because for the kernel there was only few bugs like f00f bug, and some problems with tc/ipp implementation in old 2.2 kernels).
2. You have a lot of linux distributions (I realy don't know their number :) and you don't need to wait exactly RedHat to fix it. So there is bug in redhat there is the same bug in SuSe . And if SuSe fix the bug you can use their fix on RedHat. Yes you need to know a little more than clicking with mouse but it is not hard believe me.
3. If you find bug you can fix it alone if you want because you have the sources. You don't have to wait RedHat or someone else to fix it. You can fix it your own if you realy need this. And if I find a bug in M$ and they think that it is not critical but for me this is a critical bug I must wait them until it is fixed. In open source comunity you can fix it yourself if you want and if you need it. Nothing can stop you.

Originally posted by eddy2099

One moment you claim that Microsoft is not coming out with patches fast enough and when I told you that they do, you now change your stand to say that they are releasing too many patches. So what is it ?

and here is a quote of what I have said:

Originally posted by webhostec
The main problem with M$ and patches is that if someone submits a bug to a M$ they need more than 6 months sometimes to fix it. Of course this bugs are not public but if someone "evil" finds the bug he can use it before M$ submits the patch.

I think I'm explaing my statement.

Originally posted by webhostec
The main problem with M$ and patches is that if someone submits a bug to a M$ they need more than 6 months sometimes to fix it. Of course this bugs are not public but if someone "evil" finds the bug he can use it before M$ submits the patch.May I ask how you would know that it takes them this long?

Originally posted by webhostec
I think I'm explaing my statement.I don't see how that statement explains why you changed your thoughts on Microsoft's patches.

Originally posted by HotLinkHost
May I ask how you would know that it takes them this long?


Yes you may :). But the answer is to read more about bugs and what happens in the security area. Check the bugtraq mailing lists.

I don't see how that statement explains why you changed your thoughts on Microsoft's patches.

My thoughts are not changes. They was not understanded right.

I think the "Main Hosting OS Of The Future" as the poster asks is yet to be seen. While I like FreeBSD I use Linux more often and at least on the Linux front there has yet to be a highly optimized, shared host targeted Linux based distro. Redhat ES comes part of the way but not the full mile. Shared hosts are a unique bunch and need a specialized distro focusing on certain things (optimization, resource separation and reporting, security etc). While control panels help with some of these areas (mainly updates, and simply management) there is no one, single, optimized "shared host OS".

We've toyed with the idea of creating one in the past, and still may. But whether it's us or someone else I still say we've yet to see the future OS in shared hosting.

Chris

the whole linux vs windows argument is pointless, those who run both systems will tell you wich one give them more headaches.

Redhat is de facto the king .. but I am watching Suse very closely, they recent aquisition by Novell, a company that deserves respect on the it industry, sure makes you hopefull for great things from them in the near future.

At least Microsoft is releasing the patches, u can try Redhat 9 now, no more patches, Fedora how many months of patch support? U get to rely on Fedoralegacy. I rather have an OS that give me regular updates.

Fedoralegacy is releasing patches for RH9 and others.

you don't need exactly redhat to submit a patch so you can use it.. Also you can write the patch yourself

Well, not everyone has your skill and knowledge in writing patches such as you. Most of us would need to rely on others to do that for us.

I am sure that some would create their own distribution of linux from what is available on the web and I respect them for their skills but the rest of us would rely on distribution from Redhat, Debian, Mandrake and the rest for our needs because we are just not that versed in it.

i think we should stop here. webhostec, win2k server or win 2003 is as stable as linux if you know what to do with it. and let you know i can put 150 sites on a p4 2.8 win 2003 and the average cpu usage is just less than 10%, most stay less than 5%. how's that.

anyway, i'm just amazed seeing how fast linux's grown in the os market. I'm gonna learn it soon :D.

Hehe ... 150 sites on P4 ... this is not the point... I can put 15600 sites on K6/233mhz and they will work ...of course if they don't get more than one hit a day and don't use any serverside scripting :) I can host one site in your hosting and it will make your server 99% if I want but this is not the idea.