|  | | 
08-09-2006, 09:51 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Newb Techie Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3
|  What OS a the best for Server
Linux?
FreeBSD?
Windows2003?
Other?
I heared thad FreeBsd is the best | 
| | |
08-09-2006, 11:05 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Banned Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,191
|
Linux, hands down.
| |
| | |
08-09-2006, 12:49 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Wizard Techie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the data closet Posts: 4,172
|
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.
| |
| | |
08-09-2006, 12:50 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Wizard Techie Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,660
|
Totally depends on what the server will be doing on a day to day basis. Some Os's are better for different things.
__________________  | |
| | |
08-09-2006, 12:57 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Member (again) Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Raul's Wild Kingdom...How 'bout that, huh? Posts: 4,200
|
Quote: Originally posted by Law
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.
| 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. | |
| | |
08-09-2006, 01:05 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Wizard Techie Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,660
|
Quote: Originally posted by macdude425
I've seen a Windows 2003 server crash in 45 minutes flat... |
You're suposed to idle the server for over 24 hours before even setting it up to see if the server crashes...
__________________ | |
| | |
08-09-2006, 01:15 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Wizard Techie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the data closet Posts: 4,172
|
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.
| |
| | |
08-09-2006, 01:16 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Banned Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 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?
| |
| | |
08-09-2006, 01:20 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
Wizard Techie Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,660
|
Quote: Originally posted by The General
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? |
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.
__________________ | |
| | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
| |
