Need help choosing server: apache or MS 2003 web

[mikepg]

Ok, I have access to the 4 versions of Windows 2003. Xmall business, Web server, Enterprise Edition and I thikn one more.

it's going on a MSI MOBO K8N Plat Neo 5 wirh 2Gb ram, dual 36gb raptors and dual 200gb WD caviar 7200's.

I nrrd to get a wev server up quickly and was wondering if there are any guides to doing this. Ot is going to be a small site and will be adding more in the future. I've seitched all 5 of my machines to Linux except this one. I'm going to try apache aout as well. Not knowing much about either, what would you suggest I leard on? windows or linux? I have a good bit of knowlegde in windows in 2000, 2000 server and adv server. and LOTS with XP.

Linux FC4, I'm learning as I go. I've found it realatively easy once you knoww where to look for answers.

The website is going to be for a landscaping business so it will have pictures, text's and some forms.

Pretty much just looking to see is apache is much harder to set up tha a MS system. Thanks in advance!

 

[macdude425]

Not necessarily easier, but better suited to the task Linux is. It's more stable than Windows.

IF you do decide to use Windows because you feel Linux is too complex, I still recommend using Apache.

 

[mikepg]

are there any good how to's for setting up apache server?

 

[Tyler1989]

Look you came to the wrong place and people will hate me for this but it's true. People will say Linux because you are in a Linux forum your input is biased and I would not trust the sources. Perhaps you should make a copy of this thread in a windows forum so the fanboys will be evened out.


With that said I am a user of IIS6.0 and will be using IIS7.0, The problem is that IIS6.0 and below is a gate way for viruses and other attacks. IIS7.0 will be changed so these bugs will not affect your system. Linux is much harder to set up and I do not prefer it. If one properly sets up their security on Windows it is just as good or if not better than Linux for "Personal Web Hosting".


I'd also wait for IIS7.0 and Windows Server 2005. Server 2005 is officially called Server 2003 R2 but Server 2005 sounds so much better.

 

[macdude425]

And perhaps, you should STFU...you're a fanboy too...

http://librenix.com/?inode=3396
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/

Albeit hard to setup, it is still better.
I'd like to see what jake, horndude, and furtivefelon, and Marc have to say about this.

 

[furtivefelon]

Unix is still (i believe) a tried and true server.. Though, most people will not touch your personal webserver even if they have time (as they most likely will be targetting bigger servers to get more exposer )

However, many attacks are pretty general, they target unfixed bugs in critical mass servers (which means enough user are using it to make it worthwhile).. As IIS are pretty new, i would go with Apache, there is a reason why 60% of the web is powered by apache

With that said I am a user of IIS6.0 and will be using IIS7.0, The problem is that IIS6.0 and below is a gate way for viruses and other attacks. IIS7.0 will be changed so these bugs will not affect your system. Linux is much harder to set up and I do not prefer it. If one properly sets up their security on Windows it is just as good or if not better than Linux for "Personal Web Hosting".

I'd also wait for IIS7.0 and Windows Server 2005. Server 2005 is officially called Server 2003 R2 but Server 2005 sounds so much better.

well, you said, "IIS7.0 will be changed so these bugs will not affect your system", i concur that these IIS6.0 bugs (if that's what your referring to) should and will not affect IIS7.0 (if they do, then MS is really screwing up don't you think?).. The reason why IIS6.0 is such a bad piece of software is that MS is new to the web game, i'm sure they'll suit up in time, but for now, if you want better security, you'd do better to trust Apache

I wouldn't say that if a system is hard to setup, i wouldn't do it for the sake of better end product. Especially for a smaller scale site, i would say that linux is more cost effective to maintain than windows.. That is, if you obtain your software legally..

as you also kindly pointed out, IIS7.0 is coming out later (i'm not really sure on this, as i have never been keen on the tail of MS news).. so why would you wait when you can get Apache now

for good howtos on setting up apache:
http://www.google.com/search?q=apache+++setup+++windows&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

well, the following on just articles returned by google on comparison:
Query: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=apache+++IIS+++comparison&btnG=Search

some sites require registration, don't forget to use www.bugmenot.com

 

[Tyler1989]

Macdude I wil not shut up of course the answers here will be baised do you think if I walk into the core of the rebublican party and screen Bush sucks I will be praised I will be killed. Now if I said that in a democratic party I will be honored.

This applies here. You can't ask if windows or linux is better in a linux forum it will be biased. I use both Linux and Windows macdude but I stick with windows more often. At least I can acknowlege there wil be bais and suggest him to post this at both a windows and linux board to get both sides of the story. Like fox news says one side of the story isn't enough. And also typing in "Windows vs Linux" on google and copying the first two links will not impress me.

Furtive thank you for that guide I've been looking to set up apache for some time now . But when it is finally set up how easy is it to deploy compaired to IIS.

 

[TheHeadFL]

This really isn't a Windows vs. *nix argument, since as previously pointed out, Apache runs on Windows also.

Apache all the way, seriously. Its just a lot better web server, and it is the golden standard for whats out there.

(And I am a die hard Microsoft supporter too)

 

[Tyler1989]

True apache is better for security but how easy is it to manage compaired to IIS?

 

[TheHeadFL]

I would say Apache is a lot easier to set up and use than IIS, in my experience.