Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73
  1. #26

    yes but

    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    And exactly my point.. You put this guy on a linux box and he will have problems..

    I always hate these debates because new guys come here asking these questions and walk away thinking linux is bullet proof because the "experts" said so.... In reality this is not the case. The only choice you have is use the system you know how to admin. This will be the best one for you.
    I agree with you X-Gaming but what happens when we look beyond the easyness of maintaining a Windows server and we look at OUR CLIENTS perspective.. I would personally run a Windows Server but I am concerned about what my clients will feel about this idea. I have the belief that most "experienced" web designers would rather go for a Linux hosting instead of a Windows hosting. Am I wrong?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766

    Re: yes but

    Originally posted by earthdance
    I agree with you X-Gaming but what happens when we look beyond the easyness of maintaining a Windows server and we look at OUR CLIENTS perspective.. I would personally run a Windows Server but I am concerned about what my clients will feel about this idea. I have the belief that most "experienced" web designers would rather go for a Linux hosting instead of a Windows hosting. Am I wrong?
    It all depends on what they are experienced with. Somebody that writes in php/mysql would most likely prefer a linux platform (notice I say most likely) as that is what they are used to, but I know of several very very expereienced web designers that use ASP exclusively (and quite well) so to them linux would be completely out of the question.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    There are definate pros and cons. Most of our webhosted customers couldn't tell you what OS they are on and we have had a few that asked if we support ASP but not enough to make me want to switch to Windows for our hosting accounts. Especially in todays market where the customer can do 99% of what they need to do from Cpanel..

    Concerning the OP I would say yes "Running" a linux server is not hard as long as you have someone competent to secure and maintain it for you. Another idea would be to take the $$ you save on the Win. license and hire a 3rd party to manage the server for you. There are a few around that are doing it for less then $30 per month.

  4. #29

    hm

    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    There are definate pros and cons. Most of our webhosted customers couldn't tell you what OS they are on and we have had a few that asked if we support ASP but not enough to make me want to switch to Windows for our hosting accounts. Especially in todays market where the customer can do 99% of what they need to do from Cpanel..

    Concerning the OP I would say yes "Running" a linux server is not hard as long as you have someone competent to secure and maintain it for you. Another idea would be to take the $$ you save on the Win. license and hire a 3rd party to manage the server for you. There are a few around that are doing it for less then $30 per month.
    I wouldn't trust my server to someone I don't personally know. Especially since I wouldn't be able to know what is technically going on my server.

    Another question: Is it possible for someone to find out which OS a webhost is running, besides from asking the reps?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766

    Re: hm

    Originally posted by earthdance
    I wouldn't trust my server to someone I don't personally know. Especially since I wouldn't be able to know what is technically going on my server.

    Another question: Is it possible for someone to find out which OS a webhost is running, besides from asking the reps?
    So what do you suggest to the person with the strong business mind that doesn't know how to operate a linux machine? Guess and check

    Sometimes you need to trust other people even if you don't personally know them.

    To answer the second question for the most part yes it is possible to find out the OS, to be technical you *could* hide it by tweaking a lot of things, but generally it's a waste of time.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

  6. #31

    thank you all

    Thank you all for your responses. This has been a very informative thread. I have to make up my mind but I have time still before I am forced to. I am not planning on starting a web hosting business, I am thinking that it would be a good idea but for now I am sticking with my Linux reseller to host the sites that I am designing. If required I might get a Windows VPS somewhere... any suggestions of good hosts?

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766
    Windows VPS's seem to be kind of new (at least to the WHT market) so there's not too many reviews of hosts out there. I know Ezzi offered a free trial on their services a while back which turned into a bit of a disaster. I won't comment further than that because I was not part of it, check out the VPS forums for more information on the incident.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,164
    Two reasons really:

    -Linux is free
    -You'll spend half your life keeping Windows machines patched

    Other than that, it's good. We use Windows on all our internal setup (servers and workstations) and it works perfectly. Just takes a little more looking after than your average linux network ...

    Regarding VPS's, if you're just doing plain hosting, fair enough ... but unfortunately the way Virtuozzo for Windows is written, none of the decent stuff like active directory, exchange, sharepoint, etc actually works on it. If you are going to go for a Windows VPS, I'd suggest something VmWare.

    Dan
    █ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
    █ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
    █ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
    █ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,517
    Linux IMO more secure, reliable, better performance, cheaper, better scalability... Nearly all applications are free/open source.

    Windows. Ease of use for novice users.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Originally posted by vigor
    Linux IMO more secure, reliable, better performance, cheaper, better scalability... Nearly all applications are free/open source.

    Windows. Ease of use for novice users.
    Go check the security sites that have lists of compromised machines and let me know how many are *nix based.. I make it my business to stay up on this stuff and can tell you a properly configured Windows server is 100% more secure then a improperly configured linux server..

    Please don't be naive..

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    Go check the security sites that have lists of compromised machines and let me know how many are *nix based.. I make it my business to stay up on this stuff and can tell you a properly configured Windows server is 100% more secure then a improperly configured linux server..

    Please don't be naive..
    X-Gaming is right on in what he is saying here. People always associate windows with being insecure when it generally boils down to a user not keeping their machine secure.

    The marjority of the people who feel that windows is insecure are going by their experiences generally relating to home machines that people do not update because they don't know how or simply don't care.

    I could install a fresh copy of RH9 on a local machine here, plug it into the switch, and I would be willing to be within 2 weeks it would be root compromised no problem.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    390
    Originally posted by Apolo
    You need more powerful hardware (and thus more expensive) to host the same sites on a Windows server.
    In my experience, I have found the differences in performance between properly configured Windows and Linux servers to be negligable. And I have run large sites (of the 10+ load balanced servers for one site kind) on both.

    Originally posted by dynamicnet
    The look on a Windows server admin when it does the blue screen of death... priceless.
    And the look on a Linux admin's face when it does a kernel panic?

    Originally posted by riverpast
    Windows 2K3 is quite secure, way better than 2k. As long as you do the Windows update (which is super easy and requires a two-minute reboot), everything's fine. Try do a Linux kernel rebuild and see how long it takes.
    Apples and oranges. A Linux update is as easy and quick to perform as a Windows update. You only need to do a Linux kernel rebuild when you want to customize it... but that's an important point, because with Linux, you can customize it. Try doing that with Windows.

    Originally posted by earthdance
    I wouldn't trust my server to someone I don't personally know. Especially since I wouldn't be able to know what is technically going on my server.
    If you know what you are doing, doing it yourself is always a good thing because you have full control of how you want it setup. However, if you are inexperienced, putting trust in someone to help you properly setup your environment often becomes a necessity. A poorly configured internet server is often a dangerous thing.

    Bottom line though, which one you choose (and it looks like you have chosen), really should be dictated more by what you need your server to do and what you are familiar with. Given the little info you have provided, familiarity seems to be the strongest argument toward making a choice, and that choice being Windows for you. Either option I think you will find to be more than capable.

    I use Linux because it does more of what *I* want, is much easier for *me* to remotely administrate (One of my biggest complaints with Windows is it's *requirement* of doing a large amount of the administration via it's GUI), and is customizable the way *I* want my OS to be customized.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,517
    Originally posted by X-Gaming
    Go check the security sites that have lists of compromised machines and let me know how many are *nix based.. I make it my business to stay up on this stuff and can tell you a properly configured Windows server is 100% more secure then a improperly configured linux server..

    Please don't be naive..
    Granted when I said that linux is more secure. The intentions were a properly secure linux server, not as you state an "Improperly" secured linux server. Granted that's my opinion, you can toot your horn all day and say Windows is more secure, that's your opinion, which you're are entitled too.

    While both have security issues. Linux security issues are addressed MUCH quicker than windows, from what I've seen. Thus Windows servers are left insecure for longer periods of time.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    http://fedoranews.org/blog/index.php?cat=8 <- only a few months
    http://www.debian.org/security/2005/ <-only 2005
    http://www.mandriva.com/security/advisories?dis=cs2.1 <-quite a while
    https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel4as-errata.html <only a few months for 1 product
    http://www.slackware.com/security/li...ecurity&y=2005 <- nice and short
    http://www.novell.com/linux/security/advisories.html
    https://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/...ncefolder_view


    Whew, that is by no means and extensive list, but look at all of them, at least with windows you have one source for updates.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    390
    Originally posted by JodoHost(Stephen)
    Whew, that is by no means and extensive list, but look at all of them, at least with windows you have one source for updates.
    What does linking 7 different distribution alerts have to do with comparing 1 Windows?

    If you're running Debian, you're not going to be updating from RedHat, now are you?

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,097
    On top of that, Debian includes over 15,000 different pieces of software. The entire distribution takes up over fourteen CDs. How many of those advisories are for software that would never be installed on a server; a good number of them are X applications. If you're going to compare Windows to Linux on security, compare Windows/IIS/ASP to Linux, Apache and PHP only.

    In my experience and opinion, OSS developers are a lot more upfront and responsible about security issues, and fixing them a lot faster with minimal fuss (ie. you don't have to download a 200MB service pack and reboot twice to fix a buffer overflow). There have been 'studies' that lean both ways, but considering the scope of some of the Windows vulns in the past, I'm not ready to trust them yet. I haven't seen an exploit on the scale of Blaster, Code Red or Nimda on *any* *nix platform.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Olde Englandshire
    Posts
    382
    Originally posted by RazorBlue - Dan
    -You'll spend half your life keeping Windows machines patched
    I don't spend any of my life keeping my Windows machines patched - I configure it once and let it do it for me

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    391
    I don't spend any of my life keeping my Windows machines patched - I configure it once and let it do it for me
    Until Automatic Update downloads the latest version of the IBM ServeRAID driver, installs it, automatically reboots, and then your system won't boot because the BIOS on the card had to be updated before installing the driver.

    That is the reason we as a company are in love with FreeBSD.
    EuroVPS - Europe's Fully Managed Hosting
    Established 2004 - The European Hosting Authority

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    3,642
    IIRC (I think I read this somewhere), that Linux boxes have an average time from deployment to being hacked is about 72 hours. However, under Windows - it's 20 minutes.
    Simpli Networks, LLC :: http://www.simplinetworks.com :: Proudly 100% Owned.
    Providing Affordable Managed Cloud/VPS Servers & Server Management Solutions.
    We offer REAL 24x7x365 in-house support - proudly serving our customers since 2005!
    Want to learn more? Give us a call - +1 (844) 4SIMPLI or email sales[@]simplinetworks.com today!

  20. #45
    Originally posted by error404
    On top of that, Debian includes over 15,000 different pieces of software. The entire distribution takes up over fourteen CDs. How many of those advisories are for software that would never be installed on a server; a good number of them are X applications. If you're going to compare Windows to Linux on security, compare Windows/IIS/ASP to Linux, Apache and PHP only.
    Or, he could do it the other way, and compare debian with windows (and office & IE & every piece of MS software, ever).

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766
    Originally posted by Cserver
    Or, he could do it the other way, and compare debian with windows (and office & IE & every piece of MS software, ever).
    And in this case you would end up with a lot more exploits than I think you're aware of.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    623
    Originally posted by error404
    On top of that, Debian includes over 15,000 different pieces of software. The entire distribution takes up over fourteen CDs. How many of those advisories are for software that would never be installed on a server; a good number of them are X applications. If you're going to compare Windows to Linux on security, compare Windows/IIS/ASP to Linux, Apache and PHP only.
    Since I use PHP and MySQL, I would love to see any evidence WIMP (Windows/IIS/MySQL/PHP) is better or worse on security than LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP).

  23. #48
    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    And in this case you would end up with a lot more exploits than I think you're aware of.
    Wait, when did I claim either had more exploits? I'm simply saying he needs to compare apples and apples.

  24. #49
    Having heavy experience on both platforms, I can say this:

    1) If you want to get up and running without much initial headache, go with Windows. If you want a server that keeps running properly after you've left the office for the night, go with Linux.

    2) If you want to install new fixes every three days, go with Windows. If you want to install new fixes every three months but wait an extra few days or a week for a bigger problem to be fixed, go with Linux.

    3) If you want ASP, use Windows. If you want PHP, Perl or Python (and want it to work properly), go with Linux.

    4) If you have money to burn on licenses, go with Windows. If you need it cheap, go with Linux.

    5) If you want to do everything from the console with a pretty GUI, use Windows. They make it simple. If you don't mind working from a command line or a Web-based GUI, use Linux. It's harder, but more tweakable.

    Ultimately, I would choose Linux almost any day of the week over Windows. I've worked in an environment where Windows and Linux ran side by side. Windows servers need a reboot about once every month at the very least. On the other hand, one of our Linux boxes was up exactly 400 days before a reboot -- and that was only to fix an issue with the system time drifting a minute every six weeks or so. It could have kept going indefinitely.

    Windows has its place. However, in my business, that place is on the box I play games on and that's about it
    Last edited by BigFeetMedia; 07-05-2005 at 10:34 PM.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,766
    Originally posted by Cserver
    Wait, when did I claim either had more exploits? I'm simply saying he needs to compare apples and apples.
    I felt it was implied (must have read into your post too much).
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •