[QUOTE=wingless;25803098]Your logic still fails.[/QUOTE]
How so? If he wants a reliable OS for his server, then windows server 2008 is a good option.
[QUOTE=aydin690;25803152]How so? If he wants a reliable OS for his server, then windows server 2008 is a good option.[/QUOTE]
Then you have NOT used arch os, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu server, Cent OS, I could go on because well, you seem to be a close minded microsoft fanatic, I have nothing wrong with MS, I like them but when there is a better solution [B]FOR FREE[/b] Why the fuck wouldn't you use it?
[QUOTE=aydin690;25803152]How so? If he wants a reliable OS for his server, then windows server 2008 is a good option.[/QUOTE]
For just a home server Linux is enough.
[img]http://www.q45.org/cpg/albums/userpics/10001/thumb_MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif[/img]
I don't know what to say other than: wow. Just get Linux. Win 2008 is pro tools and meant for far heavier usage, would be immense waste.
arch rolling release why would you suggest this
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
just use debian or something that stuff will never crash
[QUOTE=cryticfarm;25803606]arch rolling release why would you suggest this
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
just use debian or something that stuff will never crash[/QUOTE]
Been running arch for 3 months solid, no downtime and had no problems.
it's more risky
Before I came to my position as IT for my dad's company they were running Novell Netware 6.5. For two years. Uptime.
Yeah, it didn't have any of the latest updates, but it ran straight for two years.
[QUOTE=aydin690;25802978]When did i say i've been running 2008 for the past 5 years? I said i've been running windows based home servers for 5 years. I believe that was too hard for you to comprehend. So, let me reword it. I used 2003 for a couple of years and then upgraded to 2008 last year.
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
I believe i missed YOUR valid argument.[/QUOTE]
He has a box with 640 mb ram, the last thing he should do is install windows server 2008 R2.
It eats up enough ram to make the box useless.
Using windows server 2008 R2 is better left for more powerful boxes where the ram loss is neglible.
Windows Server 2008 R2 however, IS very stable for what it is, i think a box i have was up for 90 days or so, before becoming slightly unstable that might not even have been caused by the OS itself, but by me being a moron, windows server 2003 wasn't nearly this good.
Honestly, I have to ask something.
Do you prefer stability over being able to use the latest versions of packages out of the box without backporting etc.?
If it just needs to be low on resources and never crash, CentOS is probably one of the best options.
Ubuntu's been running crappier and crappier for me these days, on the same hardware, so I wouldn't recommend that unless you want "OMG STUPID EASY".
Now, I'm a [url=http://www.gentoo.org/]Gentoo[/url] fanboy, mainly because all the bells and whistles are off by default and it compiles everything special to work on your shit. Sure, it takes a while, and you have to compile the kernel yourself, but hard work = large profit, and compiling your kernel isn't that hard anyway. So, if I were setting it up, it'd be running Gentoo x32 (because the only benefit to x64 is more than 4GB memory used, and I doubt you have a video card with 4 GB memory) with Mumble and Fluxbox (low cost GUI).
I've no experience with Arch, and it's a well known fact Windows needs more by way of resources than Linux does.
gentoo and arch are bad for servers because rolling release.
I use a Nintendo DS for my servers
[QUOTE=Wootman;25815129]I use a Nintendo DS for my servers[/QUOTE]
I like the idea... if only...
also, I'm not a major server nut, but i would advise using a linux distro, if only for stability, and not having to pay for it...
[QUOTE=lavacano;25814505]Ubuntu's been running crappier and crappier for me these days, on the same hardware, so I wouldn't recommend that unless you want "OMG STUPID EASY".
Now, I'm a [url=http://www.gentoo.org/]Gentoo[/url] fanboy, mainly because all the bells and whistles are off by default and it compiles everything special to work on your shit. Sure, it takes a while, and you have to compile the kernel yourself, but hard work = large profit, and compiling your kernel isn't that hard anyway. So, if I were setting it up, it'd be running Gentoo x32 (because the only benefit to x64 is more than 4GB memory used, and I doubt you have a video card with 4 GB memory) with Mumble and Fluxbox (low cost GUI).
I've no experience with Arch, and it's a well known fact Windows needs more by way of resources than Linux does.[/QUOTE]
Ubuntu works perfectly well for me and I've been using it since 4.10 (Warty Warthog)
It's not exactly hard to trim out the bits you don't need.
Debian
[QUOTE=Wootman;25815129]I use a Nintendo DS for my servers[/QUOTE]
that's not a bad idea. I could get DSLinux on one and hook it up via wifi
Arch is not good for a server. Use debian. My second choice would be CentOS but only because I prefer apt-get to whatever CentOS uses.
If you want to have a server with good performance than software used will make the biggest difference. Start with a command line server with no packages and install them all manually.
DSL (Damn Small Linux)
maccabee, your avatar is terrible
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=supersnail11;25816737]DSL (Damn Small Linux)[/QUOTE]
that's a bad idea as dsl is no longer maintained.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;25816747]maccabee, your avatar is terrible
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
that's a bad idea as dsl is no longer maintained.[/QUOTE]
I know. It scares me. I'm changing it now.
It's Kanye West's album cover btw.
[QUOTE=wingless;25803633]Been running arch for 3 months solid, no downtime and had no problems.[/QUOTE]
Ooo 3 months. Let me know how it's working for you in 3 years.
I like MS Server 2008 personally, but I think the choice differs from person to person.
Also ITT Flamewar
And I'm gonna say OpenBSD 4.8 just to be different.
[editline]2nd November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;25803864]
Windows Server 2008 R2 however, IS very stable for what it is, i think a box i have was up for 90 days or so[/QUOTE]
Hahahahaha. 90 days is nothing kid.
I have kept my Mac up for 2 months without reboot, only rebooted for a spot of L4D. I recommend CentOS, the apt-get/yum difference isn't huge to me
Damn small linux
[QUOTE=Lipsonfire;25817199]Damn small linux[/QUOTE]
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
[editline]3rd November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;25803864]Windows Server 2008 R2 however, IS very stable for what it is, i think a box i have was up for 90 days or so,[/QUOTE]
that's nice, I've got a Linux box that was going on 4 years before a power outage knocked it out
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;25817222]no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
[editline]3rd November 2010[/editline]
that's nice, I've got a Linux box going on 4 years[/QUOTE]
No power outages for four years? Or do you have a UPS?
Mines going on a week. Everytime I do a bunch of configuration I do a reboot in case I forgot to restart something.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;25817222]no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
[editline]3rd November 2010[/editline]
that's nice, I've got a Linux box that was going on 4 years before a power outage knocked it out[/QUOTE]
4 years? christ
where the hell do you live? i get a power outage average once a month
Dos.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
