What OS a the best for Server
- Thread starter Wooddy
- Start date
- Status
The General
Banned
- Messages
- 5,191
Linux, hands down.
Law
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,200
- Location
- the data closet
Linux: Because it's free LOL, no seriously it's free that's why I would prefer it, but if you don't know the inside out of Linux, you'll have a hard time with it at first but you'll learn.
What is FreeBSD? No, FreeBSD is a very reliable and robust OS, I have never used it but I have heard good news.
Windows 2003: It's pretty easy to setup, but why would you pay $500-$800 for this when you can do the same in Linux. Know what I'm saying? I have it running on my system, don't ask me why LOL. Just to play around with it I guess.
Novell NetWare?: Don't go this route unless you like it, because they will stop support for NetWare in 2010 I beleieve, since Novell is moving towards SUSE now and focusing all their resource on it.
IBM, HP: Don't know anything about them.
What is FreeBSD? No, FreeBSD is a very reliable and robust OS, I have never used it but I have heard good news.
Windows 2003: It's pretty easy to setup, but why would you pay $500-$800 for this when you can do the same in Linux. Know what I'm saying? I have it running on my system, don't ask me why LOL. Just to play around with it I guess.
Novell NetWare?: Don't go this route unless you like it, because they will stop support for NetWare in 2010 I beleieve, since Novell is moving towards SUSE now and focusing all their resource on it.
IBM, HP: Don't know anything about them.
brady
S e c u r e d
- Messages
- 3,760
- Location
- Somewhere Sunny
Totally depends on what the server will be doing on a day to day basis. Some Os's are better for different things.
macdude425
Member (again)
- Messages
- 4,202
I would say heck no, absolutely not. Like I love to say, I've seen a Windows 2003 server crash in 45 minutes flat...one behind one of the best firewalls I've ever seen, and totally protected by people with large, shiny Masters' degrees in $100 frames.Law said:
brady
S e c u r e d
- Messages
- 3,760
- Location
- Somewhere Sunny
macdude425 said:
You're suposed to idle the server for over 24 hours before even setting it up to see if the server crashes...
Law
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,200
- Location
- the data closet
It was probably a bad setup, hardware problem. I've never had any bad experience with 2003, I have had bad experience with NT and 2000 though. We test the machine for a week before we roll it out into production. I would say everyone is entitle to their opinion base on their experience with the product. I didn't say it was the best though, was just pointing out some idea about it.
The General
Banned
- Messages
- 5,191
Why should you have to do that?
And why is it that whenever Windows Server 2003 has a problem, they blame it on hardware or a bad setup? Haven't you thought that maybe it's the OS thats broken, and not the hardware?
And why is it that whenever Windows Server 2003 has a problem, they blame it on hardware or a bad setup? Haven't you thought that maybe it's the OS thats broken, and not the hardware?
brady
S e c u r e d
- Messages
- 3,760
- Location
- Somewhere Sunny
The General said:
The reason you idle a server is so if it does indeed crash you don't lose any info and you don't have to take down a production server...
re: OS broken.
You'de be right if the 2003 server OS weren't one of the most popular server Os's out there.
The General
Banned
- Messages
- 5,191
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Gains_in_Web_Server_Market/1149792585
Looks like Windows is growing, yet they still only have ~30% market share.
Oh wait, so that means UNIX/*NIX is more popular that Windows Server 2003?
pwn3d
Looks like Windows is growing, yet they still only have ~30% market share.
Oh wait, so that means UNIX/*NIX is more popular that Windows Server 2003?
pwn3d
- Status
Similar threads
