Windows/Linux Servers?

[slipd]

Hey guys,

I’m just in the process of setting up a site for someone and the hosting company has given me the option of having either a Windows or Linux server for my platform – both are the same price etc, so what will be the real benefit/disadvantage of using either?

The site will be designed and developed in Windows and submitted via a Windows based ftp client. There will be some Linux testing, but just for display purposes.

Cheers

SW.

 

[ByteJuggler]

Depends if you're going to be using anything specific to either platform... ASP tends to be hosted on Windows, whereas PHP and friends tend to be hosted on Linux. If your site is static HTML then it doesn't really matter.

 

[slipd]

Atm, he's got a forum (phpBB) and some gallery tools lined up - witch I think are mainly .php based?

There won't be any serious server side scripting going on - it’s only a information site really

So basically, if I'm not using any of Microsoft's stuff (.ASP etc) I'm best off going with a Linux server?

SW.

 

[akakjs]

it sounds like a 6 of one half a dozen of the other question.

Look at how your planning to use the server over the next 12-24 months, consider what platform you want to use (Consider development tools, software availability, licencing costs etc).

Your top questions should be:

• What software will it be running?
• How will it interact with existing servers? (or new ones in the future)
• What technologies will you be using in the future? (e.g. PHP, Java, .NET, Python, etc...)
• Do you have any software that requires a particular platform already?
• Are you going to need intergrated authentication of any kind? (Active Directory/LDAP etc)

However if its a pain old HTML site, I'd go for a linux box. Not because I think linux is better, but because you'll have a wealth of information on the internet you'll be able to reference, as most static html sites are linux based.

akakjs

 

[MikeTimbers]

Linux is also likely to have less downtime as Windows servers need constant patching. Linux is more secure and less prone to attacks. My Sun web servers get probed hundreds of times per day to see if they are running IIS. Since they're not, nothing ever happens but I'm very glad I'm not running IIS.

 

[akakjs]

Linux is also likely to have less downtime as Windows servers need constant patching. Linux is more secure and less prone to attacks. My Sun web servers get probed hundreds of times per day to see if they are running IIS. Since they're not, nothing ever happens but I'm very glad I'm not running IIS.

Sorry but I belive you maybe giving a false sense of security by using the "its linux, so its secure" arguement.

Operating system security depends on a number of factors, but mainly the skill of the system administrator. You have to consider stuff like network surface-area, how upto date your software is (latest patch is not always best), firewall etc etc

Again I'm not saying windows is better than linux, or linux is better than windows. You just have to factor these things into your purchasing decisions.

If you know one OS more than the other chances are you can make it more secure. If both options come with professional administration, you won't have to worry about this beyond making sure that keeping the system secure is in your SLA (service level agreement).

akakjs

 

[NathanE]

Linux is also likely to have less downtime as Windows servers need constant patching. Linux is more secure and less prone to attacks. My Sun web servers get probed hundreds of times per day to see if they are running IIS. Since they're not, nothing ever happens but I'm very glad I'm not running IIS.

You realise IIS6 has had no serious security vulnerabilities and has only had about 3 minor patches since its release 3-4 years ago? During this time Apache has had hundreds of minor and several serious flaws

Also Linux servers DO need patching - it's just not an automated process like it is in Windows so you have to be proactive about it. This is one of the ways Linux has become so popular - through promoting a false sense of security.