|
linux (General Discussion)
linux // General Discussion
Jan 21, 2002, 9:59pm
I need a few recommendations as to which version of Linux I should use for a
webserver. Anyone have any recommendations as to the most reliable version?
Jan 21, 2002, 10:06pm
[View Quote]"crazy canuck" <ps-aw at cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3c4cab75$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I need a few recommendations as to which version of Linux I should use for
a
> webserver. Anyone have any recommendations as to the most reliable
version?
|
All work for what you need, you can really get a stripped down version for
it. I would recommend Redhat if you're just learning linux. That's my
opinion.
--Bowen--
Jan 21, 2002, 11:47pm
If you don't want a too bloated sytem, and want
to use it only for a web server, you should consider
FreeBSD instead of Linux. It is binary compatible,
comes with all necessary services but no 100 editors
and 37 FTP servers and 7 office packages and and and
[View Quote]crazy canuck wrote:
>
> I need a few recommendations as to which version of Linux I should use for a
> webserver. Anyone have any recommendations as to the most reliable version?
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Jan 21, 2002, 11:53pm
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C4CC1D3.9A57272 at oct31.de...
> It is binary compatible, comes with all necessary services but no 100
editors
> and 37 FTP servers and 7 office packages and and and
|
LOL :)
One person's saturated "market" is another's freedom to choose what they
like :)
-Agent1
Jan 22, 2002, 12:02am
BSD is binary compatible - you still have the choice to
install all the packets you want, but your HD does
not look like a junkyard after the first installation.
That's something the installer leaves to you ;)
And if Crazy Canuck wants to use it as a server, why
should he stuff the HD with things he does not need?
[View Quote]agent1 wrote:
>
> "ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C4CC1D3.9A57272 at oct31.de...
> editors
>
> LOL :)
>
> One person's saturated "market" is another's freedom to choose what they
> like :)
>
> -Agent1
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Jan 22, 2002, 4:22am
If you're willing to wait a couple months, go to lindows.com
SW Chris
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C4CC56A.CC42363C at oct31.de...
> BSD is binary compatible - you still have the choice to
> install all the packets you want, but your HD does
> not look like a junkyard after the first installation.
> That's something the installer leaves to you ;)
>
> And if Crazy Canuck wants to use it as a server, why
> should he stuff the HD with things he does not need?
>
> agent1 wrote:
news:3C4CC1D3.9A57272 at oct31.de...
>
> --
> "_
> |
> /\
> \ /
> __/ /_
|
Jan 22, 2002, 4:44am
In this case no GUI is required, so a plain networking
BSD will do fine - and even need not more than a P100
or even less.
[View Quote]sw chris wrote:
>
> If you're willing to wait a couple months, go to lindows.com
>
> SW Chris
|
--
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_
Jan 22, 2002, 6:44am
I would recommend using for a web server something you are familiar with, from your post I take it that you have no or very little experience with *nix or you'd have your own personal favorites. Security and performance, if those are your concern, do not come bundled with the OS no matter what some "experts" say. To me running a public web server on an OS you don't have experience is like asking for trouble. If I were you I'd go for Win2K/XP with IIS5, Apache or Xitami, again no matter what some "experts" say :)
At the same time it would be a good idea to get a cheap machine, preferably more for a small LAN, add 2-3 HDs and mess around (offline) with different *nix (Mandrake being an excellent start) till you feel confident about them. Then you can use that hands-on experience to run your web server on the stable, secure and (most of the times) free realm of *nix. No matter what your choice is, win or *nix, be prepared for a *lot* of daily, never ending studying, again if security and performance are your concern. Of course if it's all about cost discard all of the above (except the studying part). Good luck.
-Baron
[View Quote]"crazy canuck" <ps-aw at cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:3c4cab75$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I need a few recommendations as to which version of Linux I should use for a webserver. Anyone have any recommendations as to the most reliable version?
>
>
|
Jan 22, 2002, 1:32pm
> I would recommend using for a web server something you are familiar with,
from your post I take it that you have no or very little experience with
*nix or you'd have your own personal favorites. Security and performance, if
those are your concern, do not come bundled with the OS no matter what some
"experts" say. To me running a public web server on an OS you don't have
experience is like asking for trouble. If I were you I'd go for Win2K/XP
with IIS5, Apache or Xitami, again no matter what some "experts" say :)
You don't want to recommend XP for a webserver, nor IIS. It's just a really
bad thing to do, let alone having to pay $300+ for it. I may not be an
expert but it just doesn't seem wise. Win2k is the best choice, but Apache
is the best choice for a webserver IMHO, it's been around a lot longer, and
is generally more secure. And before Agent1 jumps at me fore bashing
Microsoft again let me explain to you why I feel XP is not a sound choice.
First the raw TCP ports, it leaves your computer completely vunerable, and
gives other people root access, then the price, obviously :). IIS is the
other big problem, there's so many holes and security breaches it hardly
seems logical to use it.
> At the same time it would be a good idea to get a cheap machine,
preferably more for a small LAN, add 2-3 HDs and mess around (offline) with
different *nix (Mandrake being an excellent start) till you feel confident
about them. Then you can use that hands-on experience to run your web server
on the stable, secure and (most of the times) free realm of *nix. No matter
what your choice is, win or *nix, be prepared for a *lot* of daily, never
ending studying, again if security and performance are your concern. Of
course if it's all about cost discard all of the above (except the studying
part). Good luck.
Yeah, learn the stuff before you jump into it. You can mess up a *nix
machine bad if you don't know what you're doing.
--Bowen--
Jan 22, 2002, 4:08pm
[View Quote]"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message news:3c4d85f4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
|
> You don't want to recommend XP for a webserver, nor IIS. It's just a really bad thing to do, let alone having to pay $300+ for it. I may not be an expert but it just doesn't seem wise. Win2k is the best choice, but Apache is the best choice for a webserver IMHO, it's been around a lot longer, and is generally more secure. And before Agent1 jumps at me fore bashing Microsoft again let me explain to you why I feel XP is not a sound choice. First the raw TCP ports, it leaves your computer completely vunerable, and gives other people root access, then the price, obviously :). IIS is the other big problem, there's so many holes and security breaches it hardly seems logical to use it.
>
Sorry but you are completely mistaken. I can think some reasons someone might prefer *nix over XP and MS in general but the one you mentioned is not even a reason, it means *nothing*. I can't comment on the price, it's your wallet, but it doesn't seem to be much for those who need it. Raw (or Berkeley) sockets support (I suppose that's what you refer to) has something to do with security? The only person that I know of being concerned over raw sockets support on a commercial OS is S. Gibson who started a mass hysteria and was proved wrong on this one to date (still only time will tell, to be fair it's only 3 months with XP). Raw sockets is a standard and standards are set to be followed, period. His concern was not security btw but the ability to spoof source IP in TCP packets which can lead to massive DDoS if abused. There are more fun stuff to do with raw sockets but that was Gibson's concern since many kidiots want to be famous by giving him a hard time. Every *nix AND Win2K support raw sockets, only Win9x does not (at least without special NDIS drivers). Relax, the sky is not falling :)
IIS is not a bigger problem than any other web server. It had it's fair share of bugs and flaws but they are not more nor less than any other web server, even Apache which seems to be your favorite. Apache is not the most popular server because of its security, it's the configuration options that are available to the competent admin that IIS or Xitami can't even dream of. The real problem is not software, it's people. Those who *think* they know what they are doing (many admins I've met included). Code Red and Nimda just proved that. Swept the clueless ones off the face of the net in two days while others had patched *months* ago (CR-March/Nimda-May) and were just watching laughing. Anyway that's the way it goes, every Joe, Dick and their mothers pose as an admin and security guru, setting up corporate networks just because the installation of Win2K AS didn't explode in their face like any *nix would. That's where the constant studying I mentioned before comes to play. Learn as much as you can, stay in touch and MS is as secure as anything else.
-Baron
Feb 1, 2002, 2:46am
>IIS is not a bigger problem than any other web server.
*cough cough* Do some research pal... What are we up to now...Arround 300
patches for IIS??!? And you're trying to say Apache isn't any better....
umm. ok.... My main point i'm going to argue is this...
Code Red and Nimda:
affected linux machines running Apache: 0
affected windows machines running Apache: minimal -
apahce rejects the malformed URL as 404 errors
affected windows machines running IIS: countless - many
patches needed to plug holes made visible by these
Steve Gibson of GRC.com is right... raw sockets in XP are a hand delivered
invatation for DDoS attacks. People say he's wrong b/c no one good enough
has written a virus for it. Expect to see the number grow exponentialy over
the next few months...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy Booker
JTech Web Systems
(www.JTechWebSystems.com -- Coming Soon)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[View Quote]"baron" <pk39srt at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4daaaf at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> "bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> wrote in message
news:3c4d85f4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
really bad thing to do, let alone having to pay $300+ for it. I may not be
an expert but it just doesn't seem wise. Win2k is the best choice, but
Apache is the best choice for a webserver IMHO, it's been around a lot
longer, and is generally more secure. And before Agent1 jumps at me fore
bashing Microsoft again let me explain to you why I feel XP is not a sound
choice. First the raw TCP ports, it leaves your computer completely
vunerable, and gives other people root access, then the price, obviously :).
IIS is the other big problem, there's so many holes and security breaches it
hardly seems logical to use it.
>
> Sorry but you are completely mistaken. I can think some reasons someone
might prefer *nix over XP and MS in general but the one you mentioned is not
even a reason, it means *nothing*. I can't comment on the price, it's your
wallet, but it doesn't seem to be much for those who need it. Raw (or
Berkeley) sockets support (I suppose that's what you refer to) has something
to do with security? The only person that I know of being concerned over raw
sockets support on a commercial OS is S. Gibson who started a mass hysteria
and was proved wrong on this one to date (still only time will tell, to be
fair it's only 3 months with XP). Raw sockets is a standard and standards
are set to be followed, period. His concern was not security btw but the
ability to spoof source IP in TCP packets which can lead to massive DDoS if
abused. There are more fun stuff to do with raw sockets but that was
Gibson's concern since many kidiots want to be famous by giving him a hard
time. Every *nix AND Win2K support raw sockets, only Win9x does not (at
least without special NDIS drivers). Relax, the sky is not falling :)
>
> IIS is not a bigger problem than any other web server. It had it's fair
share of bugs and flaws but they are not more nor less than any other web
server, even Apache which seems to be your favorite. Apache is not the most
popular server because of its security, it's the configuration options that
are available to the competent admin that IIS or Xitami can't even dream of.
The real problem is not software, it's people. Those who *think* they know
what they are doing (many admins I've met included). Code Red and Nimda just
proved that. Swept the clueless ones off the face of the net in two days
while others had patched *months* ago (CR-March/Nimda-May) and were just
watching laughing. Anyway that's the way it goes, every Joe, Dick and their
mothers pose as an admin and security guru, setting up corporate networks
just because the installation of Win2K AS didn't explode in their face like
any *nix would. That's where the constant studying I mentioned before comes
to play. Learn as much as you can, stay in touch and MS is as secure as
anything else.
>
> -Baron
>
>
>
>
|
Feb 1, 2002, 1:32pm
I gave up on trying to argue, he won't listen.
--Bowen--
[View Quote]"jerme" <JerMe at nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c5a1d8f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> *cough cough* Do some research pal... What are we up to now...Arround 300
> patches for IIS??!? And you're trying to say Apache isn't any better....
> umm. ok.... My main point i'm going to argue is this...
>
> Code Red and Nimda:
> affected linux machines running Apache: 0
> affected windows machines running Apache: minimal -
> apahce rejects the malformed URL as 404 errors
> affected windows machines running IIS: countless -
many
> patches needed to plug holes made visible by these
>
> Steve Gibson of GRC.com is right... raw sockets in XP are a hand delivered
> invatation for DDoS attacks. People say he's wrong b/c no one good enough
> has written a virus for it. Expect to see the number grow exponentialy
over
> the next few months...
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jeremy Booker
> JTech Web Systems
> (www.JTechWebSystems.com -- Coming Soon)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "baron" <pk39srt at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4daaaf at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> news:3c4d85f4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> really bad thing to do, let alone having to pay $300+ for it. I may not
be
> an expert but it just doesn't seem wise. Win2k is the best choice, but
> Apache is the best choice for a webserver IMHO, it's been around a lot
> longer, and is generally more secure. And before Agent1 jumps at me fore
> bashing Microsoft again let me explain to you why I feel XP is not a sound
> choice. First the raw TCP ports, it leaves your computer completely
> vunerable, and gives other people root access, then the price, obviously
:).
> IIS is the other big problem, there's so many holes and security breaches
it
> hardly seems logical to use it.
> might prefer *nix over XP and MS in general but the one you mentioned is
not
> even a reason, it means *nothing*. I can't comment on the price, it's your
> wallet, but it doesn't seem to be much for those who need it. Raw (or
> Berkeley) sockets support (I suppose that's what you refer to) has
something
> to do with security? The only person that I know of being concerned over
raw
> sockets support on a commercial OS is S. Gibson who started a mass
hysteria
> and was proved wrong on this one to date (still only time will tell, to be
> fair it's only 3 months with XP). Raw sockets is a standard and standards
> are set to be followed, period. His concern was not security btw but the
> ability to spoof source IP in TCP packets which can lead to massive DDoS
if
> abused. There are more fun stuff to do with raw sockets but that was
> Gibson's concern since many kidiots want to be famous by giving him a hard
> time. Every *nix AND Win2K support raw sockets, only Win9x does not (at
> least without special NDIS drivers). Relax, the sky is not falling :)
> share of bugs and flaws but they are not more nor less than any other web
> server, even Apache which seems to be your favorite. Apache is not the
most
> popular server because of its security, it's the configuration options
that
> are available to the competent admin that IIS or Xitami can't even dream
of.
> The real problem is not software, it's people. Those who *think* they know
> what they are doing (many admins I've met included). Code Red and Nimda
just
> proved that. Swept the clueless ones off the face of the net in two days
> while others had patched *months* ago (CR-March/Nimda-May) and were just
> watching laughing. Anyway that's the way it goes, every Joe, Dick and
their
> mothers pose as an admin and security guru, setting up corporate networks
> just because the installation of Win2K AS didn't explode in their face
like
> any *nix would. That's where the constant studying I mentioned before
comes
> to play. Learn as much as you can, stay in touch and MS is as secure as
> anything else.
>
>
|
Feb 5, 2002, 11:24pm
another reason in the long list not to use IIS
[View Quote]"jerme" <JerMe at nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3c5a1d8f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> *cough cough* Do some research pal... What are we up to now...Arround 300
> patches for IIS??!? And you're trying to say Apache isn't any better....
> umm. ok.... My main point i'm going to argue is this...
>
> Code Red and Nimda:
> affected linux machines running Apache: 0
> affected windows machines running Apache: minimal -
> apahce rejects the malformed URL as 404 errors
> affected windows machines running IIS: countless -
many
> patches needed to plug holes made visible by these
>
> Steve Gibson of GRC.com is right... raw sockets in XP are a hand delivered
> invatation for DDoS attacks. People say he's wrong b/c no one good enough
> has written a virus for it. Expect to see the number grow exponentialy
over
> the next few months...
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jeremy Booker
> JTech Web Systems
> (www.JTechWebSystems.com -- Coming Soon)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "baron" <pk39srt at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4daaaf at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> news:3c4d85f4$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> really bad thing to do, let alone having to pay $300+ for it. I may not
be
> an expert but it just doesn't seem wise. Win2k is the best choice, but
> Apache is the best choice for a webserver IMHO, it's been around a lot
> longer, and is generally more secure. And before Agent1 jumps at me fore
> bashing Microsoft again let me explain to you why I feel XP is not a sound
> choice. First the raw TCP ports, it leaves your computer completely
> vunerable, and gives other people root access, then the price, obviously
:).
> IIS is the other big problem, there's so many holes and security breaches
it
> hardly seems logical to use it.
> might prefer *nix over XP and MS in general but the one you mentioned is
not
> even a reason, it means *nothing*. I can't comment on the price, it's your
> wallet, but it doesn't seem to be much for those who need it. Raw (or
> Berkeley) sockets support (I suppose that's what you refer to) has
something
> to do with security? The only person that I know of being concerned over
raw
> sockets support on a commercial OS is S. Gibson who started a mass
hysteria
> and was proved wrong on this one to date (still only time will tell, to be
> fair it's only 3 months with XP). Raw sockets is a standard and standards
> are set to be followed, period. His concern was not security btw but the
> ability to spoof source IP in TCP packets which can lead to massive DDoS
if
> abused. There are more fun stuff to do with raw sockets but that was
> Gibson's concern since many kidiots want to be famous by giving him a hard
> time. Every *nix AND Win2K support raw sockets, only Win9x does not (at
> least without special NDIS drivers). Relax, the sky is not falling :)
> share of bugs and flaws but they are not more nor less than any other web
> server, even Apache which seems to be your favorite. Apache is not the
most
> popular server because of its security, it's the configuration options
that
> are available to the competent admin that IIS or Xitami can't even dream
of.
> The real problem is not software, it's people. Those who *think* they know
> what they are doing (many admins I've met included). Code Red and Nimda
just
> proved that. Swept the clueless ones off the face of the net in two days
> while others had patched *months* ago (CR-March/Nimda-May) and were just
> watching laughing. Anyway that's the way it goes, every Joe, Dick and
their
> mothers pose as an admin and security guru, setting up corporate networks
> just because the installation of Win2K AS didn't explode in their face
like
> any *nix would. That's where the constant studying I mentioned before
comes
> to play. Learn as much as you can, stay in touch and MS is as secure as
> anything else.
>
>
|
Feb 28, 2002, 11:58pm
yo hippies screw you
i kik u in the NUUUTTTZZZZZ
if he/she doesnt want to fill up his/her hard drive
why doesnt he/she consider ZipSlack, a linux installation in under 100mb, so
called as it will fit on a Zip disk. May need to download a few libs n
mods, but with those a webserver should be executable on there.
dont even have to repartition to run the installation :) nice huh ?
if repartitioning is a pain and ZipSlack really dont float your boat, then
consider WinLinux, another that will run in a fat32 partition along side a
windows installation
any way
l8rz
have fun
kris[SunOfSolaris]
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
p.s. screw linux users, get a real OS, like Solaris :) :)
LIX LIX LIX LIX KISS
[View Quote]"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in message news:3C4D07A4.29E58F1C at oct31.de...
> In this case no GUI is required, so a plain networking
> BSD will do fine - and even need not more than a P100
> or even less.
>
> sw chris wrote:
>
> --
> "_
> |
> /\
> \ /
> __/ /_
|
Mar 1, 2002, 12:09am
perhaps i am being stupid here, but weather XP support raw sockets or not,
surely this is not security risk to the user of the OS ? Only an advantage
to the skilled coder who is able to abuse the support of raw sockets in
building custom tcp packets, in order to cause DoS on another ip ?
If i was to install XP on my machine, errrrr which NO WAY am i going to do
for reasons other than security, surely i am not at risk from my own machine
? I have just increased my own potentional to cause damage to other IPs ?
maybe i'm wrong, dont even know why i am defended the OS, i hate it.
Apache, by the way, i would agree is a much more secure webserver than IIS,
problem with IIS is a poorly implemented scripting language(ASP) that is
riddled with security holes, many now patched and many still waiting to be
found. Apache is, i agree, also highly configurable.
hooray for kris
lots of love
kris[SunOfSolaris]
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
[View Quote]"j b e l l" <jbell1983 at home.com> wrote in message
news:3c6085ca$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> another reason in the long list not to use IIS
>
>
> "jerme" <JerMe at nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3c5a1d8f at server1.Activeworlds.com...
300
> many
delivered
enough
> over
a
> be
fore
sound
> :).
breaches
> it
someone
> not
your
> something
> raw
> hysteria
be
standards
|
> if
hard
fair
web
> most
> that
> of.
know
> just
> their
networks
> like
> comes
>
>
|