Web servers... Which OS to use?

[alien886]

I plan on hosting my own web site (because its cheaper and I have no monthly fee...). I don't know much about Linux, but there is a reason why 2/3 web servers run Linux. Which OS (i.e. Red Hat, Linux regular?,etc.) should I use? Which one should I use if I plan on hosting my own Counter-Strike Server (aka Game Server)? HELP PLEASE!

Also... where could I download Linux (a good version) for either use: Web Server and/or Game Server?

 

[spyordie007]

it doesnt much matter because the web server you will likely be using under just about any version of linux is going to be apache. mandrake/red hat/slackware/debian would all be good places to start.

-Spy

 

[Kappo]

I think counterstrike and q3 both have linux servers. If you want the flexibility of running other games, you will most likely need Windows. I, personally, have never had a problem with either of them. If I was to use one at home (like I do) then I would choose apache on linux (free and fairly easy to set up).

Like Spyordie007 said, it doesnt matter which version of Linux, they all have the capability to run apache. I think every distro I have ever seen (although I am by NO stretch of the imagination more than a novice) has an option to install apache. Keep in mind, though, most of your configuration will be either in a text file or a text based config program. If you want quick and easy and click and stuff, Windows would be your choice.

 

[drag]

Actually a suprisingly large amount of games have Linux servers, even if the game themselves haven't been ported.


It's pretty much standard kinda thing nowadays I think. Linux realy is a great server, especially for internet stuff.


IIS stuff should be avoided IMO, the security issues are infamous.

Apache will provide you all the functionality you will ever require. Apache has several GUI configuration tools if you want. Webmin is pretty common I am guessing, but there are others if that one doesn't work out so well. The only issue I have had for it is that it's a bit too flexible. To many options and changes for me to get ahold of in one go.

 

[cleverhandle]

RedHat has a graphical Apache config tool also, probably simpler than Webmin. I've heard that (like most RH tools) it happily rewrites the whole config file each time it runs, so you can't mix it with hand-editing. Past that, I don't know much about it. But for serving static pages on a single host, httpd.conf is pretty simple stuff to configure by hand.

 

[Monoman]

here is my $0.02,


It sounds to me like you mat have little to no linux experience with Linux. If that the case and even if it's not you should look into the BSD family. IMHO, if I had to start over again I would start with the BSD family for web site admin, and it runs all the linux software too. check this out, OpenBSD has had 1 exploit in it;s exsistance out of the box(aka straight from install) now thats pretty impressive! look at Win2k, If you don't update a fresh install you could get the blaster worm or Wechlea evenm worse.(at my work, it was a pian in the a$$ to clean those worms up)


If ya read and want more info PM me. I taught my wife to use RH9 so anyone can use linux

Mitch

 

[Nothinman]

OpenBSD has had 1 exploit in it;s exsistance out of the box(aka straight from install) now thats pretty impressive!

And as soon as you enable Apache you lose that 'out of the box' state and all the security that came with it. Out of the box on OpenBSD is so secure because all they enable is ssh, to do anything other than routing, bridging, etc you need to enable things and do the same work that would need to be done on Linux.

 

[alien886]

is RH9 free? Can you guys give me any hyperlinks? I don't know where to look. I saw the linux.org page and the "distributors," but the LONG list seemed SO overwhelming!

 

[alien886]

BTW... Can any of these Linux based Operating Systems that you mentioned (Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian) run IN WINDOWS???

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: drag
IIS stuff should be avoided IMO, the security issues are infamous.

IIS should be avoided if you are looking for something "easy"; it can be plenty secure but it takes a decent admin to get right.

-Spy

 

[Nothinman]

BTW... Can any of these Linux based Operating Systems that you mentioned (Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian) run IN WINDOWS???

Sure, if you buy VMWare or Virtual PC.

 

[jimmyhaha]

btw, I notice most hosting company still using RH 7.x (i.e. 7.3)

which makes me think 7.3 more stable than 9.0 ?

Questions

1. So how is Red Hat 9.0 compared to 9.0 ?

2. I heard RedHat is shifting focus to enterprise, and stop supporting general users and push them to the new Fedora release ?

3. I am not sure about Novell acquisition of Suse.

Do u think 2 & 3 will affect non-enterprise linux users ?

 

[yelo333]

Originally posted by: alien886
BTW... Can any of these Linux based Operating Systems that you mentioned (Mandrake, Red Hat, Debian) run IN WINDOWS???

boches will do it:

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/

remember, this is an emulator, so it does run MANY times slower - I was sitting there tapping my fingers waiting for it to decompress the kernel on a 400 mhz PII

 

[Derango]

Originally posted by: jimmyhaha

1. So how is Red Hat 9.0 compared to 9.0 ?

2. I heard RedHat is shifting focus to enterprise, and stop supporting general users and push them to the new Fedora release ?

3. I am not sure about Novell acquisition of Suse.

Do u think 2 & 3 will affect non-enterprise linux users ?

1) 9.0 is exactly like 9.0 Actually the only things different between 9.0 and 7.3 is that the packages are newer. Your webhost probably hasn't switched because that requires taking the server down (which would be a bad thing..don't you think? ) and 7.3 works perfectly (Another rule of IT, if it works, don't mess with it )

2) Redhat is dropping the free version of RH and is now using Fedora, a more open, community driven distro which is HEAVILY based on redhat 9.

3) Me either. I don't see it affecting much other than novell releasing netware with a linux kernel

2 will only affect regular linux users that use redhat when they want to upgrade (since they'll be going to fedora instead of red hat 10 or whatever) Most regular red hat users I've heard of have never called red hat for tech support...so thats not a huge deal

3 is anyone's guess right now, but because SuSE is only availble either through an ftp install or by buying a boxed copy, I can't see it hurting anyone any.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

OpenBSD has had 1 exploit in it;s exsistance out of the box(aka straight from install) now thats pretty impressive!

And as soon as you enable Apache you lose that 'out of the box' state and all the security that came with it. Out of the box on OpenBSD is so secure because all they enable is ssh, to do anything other than routing, bridging, etc you need to enable things and do the same work that would need to be done on Linux.

But the beauty of it is that even if a complete newbie manages to get a server up and running, it won't be vulnerable out of the box, unlike most OS's, you actually have to make it vulnerable yourself.

To the OP, I'd go with Debian if I were you.
The learning curve is a bit steep for a newbie, but if you're gonna run a webserver, you'll NEED to learn anyway, otherwise it's only a matter of time before you get rooted, so this is less of an issue than it is when setting up a desktop.

 

[Nothinman]

But the beauty of it is that even if a complete newbie manages to get a server up and running,

If they get past the partitioning in OpenBSd they're not a newbie =)

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But the beauty of it is that even if a complete newbie manages to get a server up and running,

If they get past the partitioning in OpenBSd they're not a newbie =)

It's not too bad as long as you don't wanna have it coexist with another OS

 

[Nothinman]

True.

 

[Homerboy]

I dont want to cr@ap here, but if he doesnt even know where to dload redhat etc from, maybe he might not be ready for *NIX or BSD for that matter? I dunno... seems sketchy to me.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: drag
IIS stuff should be avoided IMO, the security issues are infamous.

IIS should be avoided if you are looking for something "easy"; it can be plenty secure but it takes a decent admin to get right.

-Spy

So if you want to get it "right" then it's not so "easy" then isn't it?
Seems to me that there is realy no shortcut to good security so the level of expertise needed to get everything secure in windows, isn't any less then it takes to set up a decent and secure server in Linux.

is RH9 free? Can you guys give me any hyperlinks? I don't know where to look. I saw the linux.org page and the "distributors," but the LONG list seemed SO overwhelming!

Check out LinuxISrg

Also a good place to go is the homepage of the linux distro you plan on installing. They usualy have detailed and specific instructions.

And as far as Redhat goes, I getting to the point were I think it would be easier just to install Fedora It's been around enough to get good userbase going and support for new programs in redhat 9 is beginning to slow down.

The major advantage is that it comes with (I beleive) a decent package manager by default. Makes it a trivial thing to install programs over the internet as long as the programs are aviable thru the "repositories" of stored rpm packages. Plus it's easy to reference new repositories for specific programs that wouldn't be aviable normally.

However if you do have redhat 9.0 you have to install a package manager seperately. But once you do it's fairly easy to upgrade to fedora when you feel comfortable about it.

 

[spyordie007]

So if you want to get it "right" then it's not so "easy" then isn't it?
Seems to me that there is realy no shortcut to good security so the level of expertise needed to get everything secure in windows, isn't any less then it takes to set up a decent and secure server in Linux.

Well I suppose IIS 6 (Windows 2003 Server) could be considered both easy and secure "out of the box"; with anything before IIS 6 however it was easy to setup but required a bit of work to secure properly (but than again it was nothing harder than partitioning in OpenBSD with more than one OS, and IISLockDown made it much easier). This is of course the reason that code red and nimda were as prodominent as they were, too many web server admins didnt take the time to lock the service down.

-Spy

 

[easternerd]

Redhat is free and so is Apache
get it buddy..
its the best.. and it Ruleeezzzz..

 

[alien886]

Cool deal guys! Thanks a lot! I am downloading Red Hat 9.0's installation cds #1,2,&3 as I speak! Thanks for the linuxISrg link

 

[mjquilly]

Not to bring you down - but you really might want to reconsider buying your hosting. You can find some great deals in the Hot Deals forum right here. But the main point I'd like to make is that it's quite a pain to ensure that your server is secured and up to date w/ security patches - and that it is backed up. Things that a provider will take care of for you. I pay a bit over $20 for my hosting/dns, and it is quite convenient - web mail set up for me, mySQL database set up, daily backups...and on and on. Running the server on your own would be a great learning experience, just be careful - you don't want someone doing all sorts of nasty stuff on your machine - or using your machine to do nasty stuff to other people!

Good luck!

 

[alien886]

i am considering buying a web server host, but I will host my own game servers (as soon as I learn enough about RH9...).

SPEAKING OF WEB SERVER HOSTING...

Whats the best deal out there anyway (the biggest bang for the buck)?

It's all about how many GBs of traffic and web space in MBs, any suggestions???