Web Server OS

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Either way you're still going to have to edit config files and such.

I'd much rather edit a well-documented config file than hunt around a poorly-organized GUI config program. I run apache on XP and it's generally not hard to do most things. One thing that I hate about IIS is password-protecting folders. It's much more sensible in Apache.

Some people learn to type and some people hunt and peck. Its all person preference. I perfer config files, but others dont. Nothing wrong with having options.

 

[Nothinman]

If you're using 2000 Professional or XP, be aware that you have a 10 connection limit to your computer, limiting it's server capabilites.

Only if you stick to MS software, Apache won't have any limitations.

The walk through guides for Debian at the time sucked (1. Put cd into drive, 2. Install, 3. Follow on screen directions, ect.) and the modules you had to choose weren't listed where anyone thats a beginner could install them.

The installer does all the hardware detection for you now so you shouldn't have to load any modules manually. And if Debian is still too intimidating for you grab a copy of Ubuntu, it's based on Debian but Windows users seem to like their default settings better.

 

[Smilin]

If you go Windows use 2003 Server Web edition. It's cheaper than a "free" linux distro once you consider support.

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

I would recommend against VNC for admin though. Windows simply doesn't need it (or the additional vector)

Just move RDP off of port 3389 then use "mstsc /console" from your client to connect.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If you're using 2000 Professional or XP, be aware that you have a 10 connection limit to your computer, limiting it's server capabilites.

Only if you stick to MS software, Apache won't have any limitations.

Really? I thought the connection limit was enforced at the kernel level.

 

[Smilin]

Does that limit apply to HTTP or just SMB?

Thought it was SMB only. Been a while though. Retarded to run production servers on XP anyway.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you go Windows use 2003 Server Web edition. It's cheaper than a "free" linux distro once you consider support.

Yeah, because Google costs tons....

hasn't failed me yet.

If you can't install Debian though, windows is right for you (just dont' try to reinstall windows, it's as hard as Debian)

 

[Smilin]

mmm, no google, technet and whatnot are what you do BEFORE you call tech support.

My point was:
If you buy a linux distro WITH tech support it would be cheaper just to use Windows with SA and have FREE tech support.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you go Windows use 2003 Server Web edition. It's cheaper than a "free" linux distro once you consider support.

How much is it?

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

Debatable.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Really? I thought the connection limit was enforced at the kernel level.

I did some research on this last week. Since IIS connections are anonymous, and the XP and 2000 limits are for AUTHENTICATED connections, I assumed that the 10-connection limit didn't apply to aonymous browser connections. Well, it doesn't.

BUT, IIS checks what OS it is running on. If it's XP or 2000, it limits ANONYMOUS connections to 10.

But if you aren't using IIS (using Apache, instead), there should be no anonymous browser connection limit.

In line with Smilin's comment above, Windows Server 2003 is a reliable, secure, easy-to-setup product, and contains IIS 6, which is quite secure out-of-the-box. You have to go out of your way to create a configuration that isn't pretty secure. And Remote Desktop (included with 2003 and XP) works great. I use it all day long to manage client's servers and desktops.

Personally, I never use FTP, whether on Windows or Linux. If my clients need files accessible to the Internet, they host them on secure web sites, use Remote Desktop, or VPN.

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: nweaver

If you can't install Debian though, windows is right for you (just dont' try to reinstall windows, it's as hard as Debian)

The debian insults are old. I tried it two years ago with no automatic installer where you had to scroll through hundreds of modules to pick the drivers, programs, and everything else you want. You had to do all of that with limited documentation and try to find the modules you needed. Hard to do without another computer to search the web at that time to find the mdoule names for your video/network/ide controler/cdrom/ect. driver/ Read deeper before insulting. As others have said, its easier to do now and I might just try it if the time comes. Right now I have SuSE Linux 10.0 OSS installed and will try that first.

 

[spyordie007]

One thing that I hate about IIS is password-protecting folders. It's much more sensible in Apache.

If you want to provide simple http authentication on a per-directory/file basis I agree that it's easier than under IIS with .htaccess and .htpasswd (just hope you're using SSL). Granted it isnt exactly hard to create local user accounts with privilages to nothing but the IIS directories you want; but seperate password files make it very easy and seperate under Apache.

On the other hand if you want to provide integrated authentication or a combination of mechanisms IIS is much easier/faster to configure. It really depends on what you're looking to accomplish.

As for the OP what it sounds like you're looking to do could be easily done on either platform. Dont let anyone here pressure you into picking something just because they prefer it. Linux/Apache, Windows/Apache and Windows/IIS are all very good web serving platforms.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

One thing that I hate about IIS is password-protecting folders. It's much more sensible in Apache.

If you want to provide simple http authentication on a per-directory/file basis I agree that it's easier than under IIS with .htaccess and .htpasswd (just hope you're using SSL). Granted it isnt exactly hard to create local user accounts with privilages to nothing but the IIS directories you want; but seperate password files make it very easy and seperate under Apache.

On the other hand if you want to provide integrated authentication or a combination of mechanisms IIS is much easier/faster to configure. It really depends on what you're looking to accomplish.

For corporations, the IIS method makes sense. For me, it doesn't. I would imagine it wouldn't for most individuals.

 

[spyordie007]

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

Debatable.

If you're looking at Server 2003 with IIS 6 I dont think there is much of a debate here; IIS5 on the other hand... :roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

Debatable.

If you're looking at Server 2003 with IIS 6 I dont think there is much of a debate here; IIS5 on the other hand... :roll:

So server 2k3 and IIS6 have begun using proactive security, as well as being setup correctly by default?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

Debatable.

If you're looking at Server 2003 with IIS 6 I dont think there is much of a debate here; IIS5 on the other hand... :roll:

So server 2k3 and IIS6 have begun using proactive security, as well as being setup correctly by default?

The out-of-the-box IIS6 install is (arguably) very secure; only providing the most basic serving functionality (you have to enable/install additional components if you want it to do more than just pass files).

This is especially true in Server 2003 R2 (released back in November). The default server install doesnt even open connections through the firewall until you're ready.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
The out-of-the-box IIS6 install is (arguably) very secure; only providing the most basic serving functionality (you have to enable/install additional components if you want it to do more than just pass files).

This is especially true in Server 2003 R2 (released back in November). The default server install doesnt even open connections through the firewall until you're ready.

So, still no proactive security measures?

It's good to hear they finally learned that setting things up correctly out of the box will help. Now if I could just stop seeing code red alerts...

 

[spyordie007]

What do you mean by proactive security measures? There are plenty of extra security layers that can be added on (i.e. ISA) but those arent a function of the Web server (IIS or Apache) so I'm not exactly sure to what you are refering.

Now if I could just stop seeing code red alerts...

No doubt; it's insane the number of machines that have yet to be fixed.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
What do you mean by proactive security measures? There are plenty of extra security layers that can be added on (i.e. ISA) but those arent a function of the Web server (IIS or Apache) so I'm not exactly sure to what you are refering.

On other OSes I get non-exec heaps/stacks, non-writable executable memory, and guard pages. I get SELinux installed and configured by default on RedHat. ProPolice/SSP is used, at least on a couple of BSDs and Linux distros, to make exploiting software bugs a bit harder.

I can install any number of other security features, or have them installed with the system (depending on distro). But I don't hear about any improvements like this from Microsoft.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you go Windows use 2003 Server Web edition. It's cheaper than a "free" linux distro once you consider support.

How much is it?

Security is all in the admin. Windows doesn't have any inherent flaws if properly set up.

Debatable.

Redhat with 24x7 web support, $799
http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/server/

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, SA, 24x7 web support, $399 ($349 for license only)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx
(http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail~dpno~139344.asp)

Obviously not a perfect apples to apples but very close. A $300 difference is pretty significant. Some notes:
SLA on web support with MS is 4hr response time I believe. RH is 2 days.
At MS Web support incidents usually transition to phone if the customer would like.
With SA, you'll get support coverage for product life.
With RedHat it's only for one year.

If you are self sufficient and never need support and can honestly say that in a production environment you will NEVER need it then sure a free OS would be cheaper. In any other case, Windows is cheaper.

edit: Keep in mind, the above is the worst case scenario at MS. You do volume licensing, a premier agreement or something similar you're going to get 24x7 phone tech support (heck, if a premier agreement guy calls on a critsit he can have a dude from MS on a plane within 4hrs) and the cost is still going to be better than tech support from RH.

 

[jd90]

Hi,

I actually ran a webserver at home, using Windows Server 2003 Enterprise and a P2 300mhz with 256 megs of ram. It was actually pretty speedy. One problem that I did run into was trying to install MySQL and Perl on the server, I just could not get it to work. If you do use IIS 6.0, it does come with a Lockdown tool that you can use to tweak the security settings.

Also, keep in mind that Windows XP Professional only comes with IIS 5 and limits you to ten connections at any given time.

Firewall-wise, try using Shields UP! (https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2) to scan your ports after you correctly configure your firewall. Linksys makes good routers & firewalls, so you shouldn't have a problem. If you're really paranoid, you could always put your server on a seperate subnet and/or use a seperate router to make sure they are completely seperate.

Hope this helps,
JD

 

[jd90]

You can also get free 180 day trials from the Microsoft website of enterprise edition. If you get a few and are willing to reformat every 3 months, you're good to go!

 

[Nothinman]

The debian insults are old. I tried it two years ago with no automatic installer where you had to scroll through hundreds of modules to pick the drivers, programs, and everything else you want. You had to do all of that with limited documentation and try to find the modules you needed. Hard to do without another computer to search the web at that time to find the mdoule names for your video/network/ide controler/cdrom/ect. driver/ Read deeper before insulting. As others have said, its easier to do now and I might just try it if the time comes. Right now I have SuSE Linux 10.0 OSS installed and will try that first.

It wasn't exactly easy, but I wouldn't call it terribly hard either. And I wouldn't call 8 chapters and 5 appendices in their installation manual 'limited documentation'.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: jd90
You can also get free 180 day trials from the Microsoft website of enterprise edition. If you get a few and are willing to reformat every 3 months, you're good to go!

Uh....180 days is six months....

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Redhat with 24x7 web support, $799
http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/server/

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, SA, 24x7 web support, $399 ($349 for license only)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx
(http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail~dpno~139344.asp)

Obviously not a perfect apples to apples but very close. A $300 difference is pretty significant. Some notes:
SLA on web support with MS is 4hr response time I believe. RH is 2 days.
At MS Web support incidents usually transition to phone if the customer would like.
With SA, you'll get support coverage for product life.
With RedHat it's only for one year.

If you are self sufficient and never need support and can honestly say that in a production environment you will NEVER need it then sure a free OS would be cheaper. In any other case, Windows is cheaper.

edit: Keep in mind, the above is the worst case scenario at MS. You do volume licensing, a premier agreement or something similar you're going to get 24x7 phone tech support (heck, if a premier agreement guy calls on a critsit he can have a dude from MS on a plane within 4hrs) and the cost is still going to be better than tech support from RH.

That's quite a difference. I'm guessing it would have to do with volume and diversification of revenue.

Having used RH for a couple of years in a production environment, I don't think we've had to use our support contract at all.

 

[sourceninja]

Hell you could buy an entry level sun server with with solaris on it for 780 bucks. Its and the support contracts are very cheap if you buy the after the fact, some as cheap as under 200 a year. Not that i would use solaris x86 for a small opperation. I would use linux personally. But the choices are limitless.