Welcome to Geeklog, Anonymous Friday, November 22 2024 @ 12:17 am EST

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Monday, April 07 2003 @ 04:03 am EDT
Contributed by: vbgunz
Views: 21,360

I've been wanting to try Linux for years. Been hesitant though because its simply different. Yesterday I ran across an article which points to Live Evaluation CDs. Basically you can boot Linux up using a CD-ROM.

Within just one hour I've downloaded the Knoppix and SUSE versions and hey, they're pretty good.

Its hard to get an unbiased opinion sometimes but I am thinking about hosting Geeklog on my own machine. Currently I am running Windows XP on a 1.2 Athlon with 512RAM.

XP runs great but how would Linux compare if I decided to install it? I heard its so good IBM installed it on a wris*censored*ch...

Should I notice a difference? Using its GUI (KDE or is it Knome) will I see an improvement if I get around to hosting and serving with it compared to XP? I know I probably shouldn't be asking this here but the reason why I am is because XP serves great but will Linux run and serve Geeklog better or should I stay with XP?

Also one last note... I've only tried out the Evaluation CDs of SUSE and Knoppix... Is their a better version such as Redhat or Mandrake? I am trying to serve...

I'm looking for opinions before I reach a decision. Thanks for any feedback :)

Comments

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog? | 14 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: vinny on Monday, April 07 2003 @ 09:43 am EDT

Linux will probably give you better server performance over Windows XP (especially the home edition). That being said, unless you're getting thousands of hits per hour (a really high traffic web site) it is unlikely you'll notice much of a difference with your hardware (i.e. you have enough RAM and processing power that even windows bloat doesn't hurt you much).

If you have some old hardware laying around, I'd suggest installing linux there and 'practicing'. Running a linux server is a much different experience from running an Windows (XP) server.

-Vinny

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: zx6r on Monday, April 07 2003 @ 01:41 pm EDT

I agree with Vinny.

Here is my take on it, if it ain't broke don't fix it. You are comfortable with XP and know what is going on there.

If all you want to do is try Linux, I would not replace your existing XP installation. I would find a separate piece of hardware and try Linux there. If you don't have extra hardware lying around, I find VMware works well to try new OS's. Your box is more than capable of running Linux under a VM and serving pages, the downside would be that VMware is expensive. It may be cheaper to buy a second box. You could also dual boot your existing machine, which is kind of what your doing with Knoppix and SUSE, only install the OS on a hard drive partition rather than running off a CD filesystem. Just be sure to backup your XP installation in case things go bad.

I personally like running servers with Linux because I don't have to run a GUI and can eek a little more performance out of a box, or run on a box with less hardware required. I find it easier to administer a box remotely with Linux as well. SSH is my friend, until the next vulnerability hits.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Geeklog is great and runs on multiple platforms, go with what you are most comfortable with. The performance differences between the OS's are probably not going to be noticeable.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: vbgunz on Monday, April 07 2003 @ 06:19 pm EDT

Thank you both for your input. I am somewhat in love with SuSe and am curious. If I put it on another box what would be equivalent to a 1.2 Athlon w/ 512RAM without the 1.2 Athlon w/512RAM?

What I mean is if IBM can run it on a wris*censored*ch what would be the mininum specs that can match what I currently run?

300 Celeron, 128 RAM?
450 P2, 64 RAM?

Thanks :)

---
Victor B. Gonzalez

---
Victor B. Gonzalez -
http://aeonserv.com

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Tuesday, April 08 2003 @ 04:46 am EDT

Linux can be configured to run on very modest hardware. The IBM wrist watch example is probably taking it to the extreme.

Most modern Linux distributions won't install with less than 32MB RAM. Disk usage really depends on how much software you install but several hundred megabytes isn't uncommon.

As far as CPU goes, power is cheap these days and faster always helps but you can expect decent interactive performance over an encrypted link with a 500MHz, or faster, CPU.

I use both FreeBSD and Debian GNU/Linux. My systems generally have 256MB of RAM and software RAID-1 mirrored disks. The CPUs are 500MHz to 800MHz and they work just fine.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Monday, April 07 2003 @ 09:17 pm EDT

I think there's tools for some tasks, and tools for other tasks.. I run http://mvgals.net on an old linux laptop (it's actually not geeklog; it's gallery, but thinking of integrating geeklog around gallery..) the laptop is only 700mhz, but runs circles around my workstation athlon 1.8 when it comes to automation (i.e. cronjobs/scripting in general...)

Still, I use the large desktop (which, btw, has 4x160gb drives internal, main reason I picked up that motherboard..) as my dvd ripper/player as well as for mp3's, and use my linux laptop for any code that goes around the files served via fileshares from the w2k box.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: os on Tuesday, April 08 2003 @ 05:45 am EDT

Hi

You really should get another box if you want to learn Linux as fast and painless as possible.
Also a good book helps.. If you are going to host a ‘production’ site, e.g. something more than an personal site that needs to be up, you should go with what you know, but I hope your not planning to use windows xp for that ..

If its not anything important, why not give it a try? And yes, a simple box witch 500mhz can do the job, just don’t install graphical stuff. Scary without windows and nice icons? Vel, that’s linux / unix for you and a server is not suppose to have any icons!

My 2 cents of course, but I’m always right :)

ø.s

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Friday, May 16 2003 @ 05:51 am EDT

Hey i reasently change my college servers over to linux redhat we now have routers, cash servers and the works and the systems run faster smoother and much more funnto use .... plus if you use the KDE gui not the GNOME then you get options to change everything :-)

hope this helps you choose :-)

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, June 04 2003 @ 07:39 am EDT

Interesting bug in the censorship there. I wouldn't have thought that wrist watch shoul be censored!! :o)

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, June 04 2003 @ 08:12 pm EDT

It censored the word because it thought it was a ladies private :)... I am getting a few newer systems soon and after migration I think I might get red hat linux and give it a try... SUSE looks good too...

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Thursday, July 10 2003 @ 04:02 pm EDT

Yes, you

must be exposed to Linux. Yes, buy another box and start fresh; it's easier than dual booting your XP machine. Also buy a KVM which makes life sweeter and they are cheaper than new console devices. When you self-run a blog, you no longer will be a newbie. Good Luck- [geeklog@rmwd.net]

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: mentorkyrom on Monday, November 03 2003 @ 05:17 pm EST

The KDE interface is more for me. Linux' focus isn't so much on performance as it is with stability- however, don't get me wrong, a decent linux server can handle alot that's thrown at it. To bad we've lost Red-Hat however :( . You can still always try to install <a href="www.mandrakesoft.com">Mandrake</a> They have a great and VERY easy distrabution going.
<p>
Keep in mind you can always make another partition for your linux OS and install a boot loader like LiLo :)

<br>
Good Luck<br>

---
FlashyTech.com - Another improvement of life.

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: fairclothb on Monday, July 05 2004 @ 10:14 pm EDT

Lost of Redhat is not correct. You still have it for FREE, just named a little different.... Try out... http://fedora.redhat.com/

It is bleeding edge technology, but It works good and is updated a lot.

-b

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: bbnet on Monday, April 05 2004 @ 03:18 am EDT

May want to give red hat and apache a shot, great performance for sure, however, you're bottleneck will probably lie with your isp's upload rate, ussually a fraction of the download speed. Best of luck!

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Authored by: fairclothb on Monday, July 05 2004 @ 10:24 pm EDT

Do not think about it!!! Linux is the way to go.. I say that as I do run it on my server, to host my geeklog. I work with large Organization that is on Oracle Portal Tehcnology on Linux. Also Oracle uses Linux for there internal Business use. Bigest thing that makes it better is not just it speed and stability, but its scalibility to adapt to any enviroment and have High Availibility. The choice is easy if you looking to the future.

-fairclothb

Warning: Javascript required to enable functionality

Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

Search

Resources

About

Getting started

Support

Development

Topics

User Functions

What's New

Articles last 4 weeks

Comments last 4 weeks

Pages last 4 weeks

Links last 4 weeks

Downloads last 4 weeks