-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Linux Red Hat or windows 2000
- Thread starter Lil_Rob
- Start date
well, if you're looking for security, then stick to windows 2000. also, if plan to run any widows based scripts e.g ASP, VBSCRIPT etc. then stick to windows, but if you want to run cgi, php, and mysql, go with linux. and i would think that linux would be more stable since it shouldn't be running a windows system.. so yea, i would go with linux just for php and MYSQL 
.
.
Uh, when did Hell freeze over? I can't believe I missed it! I have been watching the news. Argh.. we always get things months later in Australia!! GRRR!
EDIT:
I have had experience with both and would have to say that the open source part of Linux only helps secure it even more. Of course if the sys admin is incompetent ( much like my spelling ) then that is the biggest security risk there is. Other than that I really don't see where your coming from.
Last edited:
Rick
New Member
Microsoft is constantly pointing out little pinholes in linux security, while downplaying the gaping holes in windows security. Linux IS open source, so security flaws are quickly spotted and closed by the linux community... Usually the person that discovered the flaw will submit a patch for it at the same time.
Windows, on the other hand, is proprietary, so when a security hole is discovered, it must be reported to Microsoft, who will eventually get around to assigning somebody to look into it, meanwhile, the flaw is public knowledge and during the months it takes to build a patch, the hackers are having a grand old time exploiting the flaw.
For security stability, and heavy loads... Use linux. For fast asp applications, use NT
Windows, on the other hand, is proprietary, so when a security hole is discovered, it must be reported to Microsoft, who will eventually get around to assigning somebody to look into it, meanwhile, the flaw is public knowledge and during the months it takes to build a patch, the hackers are having a grand old time exploiting the flaw.
For security stability, and heavy loads... Use linux. For fast asp applications, use NT
Yeah apparently they are very vulnerable to very old viruses and some scripts can bring down a server very easily. I brought down a server just by editting a copy of phpbb by making something a comment so it wouldn't check if the config file was chmoded properly (because windows sucks and you can't change file permissions without going to your host). Anyway I installed the phpbb and logged in as admin. The server came back and a few hours later I logged in as admin on phpbb and the server went down. This happened a few times until I realised it was phpbb which was messing up the server. I now conclude that windows has crap security and is very vulnerable.Originally posted by michael p bennett
I agree windows servers are a joke....hahahaha
As fun as it may be to jump on the Microsoft bashing bandwagon it does have some good things. For one their systems always integrate with other Microsoft products very nicely and because Microsoft has such wide spread support among most consumers that integration greatly benefits them. For example if you wanted a streaming media system Windows Media Server is apart of Windows 2000 server I do believe. Where as you would have to pay thousands for RealServer for the same capability. Another example is ASP - yes there are alternatives which may or may not be better depending upon the programmer. Yes, there are other ASP solutions but they probably won't behave in the exact manner as they would on a Windows system.
Now with that said yes personally I'd say go PHP, try Darwin streaming server instead of Windows Media Player, and so on. However, you shouldn't simply discontinue Microsoft products because they are made by Microsoft. vik13 is absolutely correct that because Windows isn't open source it's not technically as easy to find new security holes. However, that goes back to the saying security through obfuscation isn't real security.
I'm just about done with my little rant but I want you to keep one other thing in mind. If the companies in charge of these Windows servers simply applied the patches when Microsoft released them then Microsoft probably wouldn't have such a bad reputation. If anything it's to user friendly and as a result small companies often don't hire a true systems administrator to keep it running properly.
I don't hear people running Linux sucks when the zlib vulnerability came out, nor did I hear people shouting drop OpenSSH when the off by one error came out. Every piece of software will have its problems eventually, judge the company based on how they respond to the problem. I've personally reported a security issue to the Microsoft team and they responded very quickly to my message.
Now that my rants done I'll return this thread to it's original topic.
If you don't need any Windows specific features and you're looking for a choice between Windows and Linux choose Linux.
To everyone else, don't be so quick to judge without considering the whole situation. I'm not a big Microsoft fan by any means but I do get sick of seeing people hate Microsoft only because it's the popular thing.. Rant done.
Now with that said yes personally I'd say go PHP, try Darwin streaming server instead of Windows Media Player, and so on. However, you shouldn't simply discontinue Microsoft products because they are made by Microsoft. vik13 is absolutely correct that because Windows isn't open source it's not technically as easy to find new security holes. However, that goes back to the saying security through obfuscation isn't real security.
I'm just about done with my little rant but I want you to keep one other thing in mind. If the companies in charge of these Windows servers simply applied the patches when Microsoft released them then Microsoft probably wouldn't have such a bad reputation. If anything it's to user friendly and as a result small companies often don't hire a true systems administrator to keep it running properly.
I don't hear people running Linux sucks when the zlib vulnerability came out, nor did I hear people shouting drop OpenSSH when the off by one error came out. Every piece of software will have its problems eventually, judge the company based on how they respond to the problem. I've personally reported a security issue to the Microsoft team and they responded very quickly to my message.
Now that my rants done I'll return this thread to it's original topic.
If you don't need any Windows specific features and you're looking for a choice between Windows and Linux choose Linux.
To everyone else, don't be so quick to judge without considering the whole situation. I'm not a big Microsoft fan by any means but I do get sick of seeing people hate Microsoft only because it's the popular thing.. Rant done.
