SERVER FAILURE HELP!!!!!!

[Disease]

@Cybernerd.

Nice to see you have master the use of an Ad Hominem.

[DMcCoy]

Windows 2003 is actually very reliable. It has its issues like patching but generally it works

 

OS X is reliable too, once you work around some of flaws.

 

Linux is reliable.

 

BSD is reliable.

 

They can all *be* unreliable though. I have had debian kill my server during a routine apt-get update. Turn linux off half way through a kernel upgrade and I expect it will be upset too.

 

They are all as secure as you make them, IIS 6 has a decent record for security, as does Apache.

 

PHP seems to have quite a lot of security issues, this can affect all the platforms.

 

I use all of the above to run things here, and choose whatever is suited to the task, file sharing is a good example - I'd pick windows over OS X, and that over Linux. Why? ACLs, linux still come with a terribly restrictive permission system as standard. OS X has at least added these in 10.4.

 

Web server? Currently WAMP, moving to Ubuntu. This is mostly due to performance.

 

If it *works* does it matter what is providing the service?

[Disease]

Windows 2003 is actually very reliable. It has its issues like patching but generally it works

 

OS X is reliable too, once you work around some of flaws.

 

Linux is reliable.

 

BSD is reliable.

 

They can all *be* unreliable though. I have had debian kill my server during a routine apt-get update. Turn linux off half way through a kernel upgrade and I expect it will be upset too.

 

They are all as secure as you make them, IIS 6 has a decent record for security, as does Apache.

 

PHP seems to have quite a lot of security issues, this can affect all the platforms.

 

I use all of the above to run things here, and choose whatever is suited to the task, file sharing is a good example - I'd pick windows over OS X, and that over Linux. Why? ACLs, linux still come with a terribly restrictive permission system as standard. OS X has at least added these in 10.4.

 

Web server? Currently WAMP, moving to Ubuntu. This is mostly due to performance.

 

If it *works* does it matter what is providing the service?

 

Great Post.

we shall move on now

[Guest Guest]

Like said, just use a linux live cd and dump all the files onto another server or a USB stick for the time being.

 

Then use a *nix distro for your webserver. We've got apache running on 2003 atm (for backup reasons) but i will be moving it over to debian or ubuntu soon as its far to unstable (for a 100% stable app that is)

 

Then next time put some backup procediors in place so this doesnt happen again.

[alonebfg]

Ok thats it i am getting out the gun boxing gloves bell and ring for this I think each os has its place and I have to disagree to agree one of the biggest networks in this country has unix and windows. both working side by side in harmony both doing a good job at what they do best. It is also one of the most reliable networks it has to be it controls our countrys armed forces militry and goverment. yes the goverment network uses all windows and unix/linux and spark prossers ect ect. every one has there prefrance (keep it to yourself i have none) as far as server goes try to back up hard drive format reinstall and try again if it fails again you hmay have a hardware issue (i have just had a controler do the same thing to me. Did not relise it till changed hd and tried reinstalling.

[srochford]

 

Large chunks of the Internet are run on *nix and more often Linux these days. For example, over 50% of the web according to Netcraft (Assuming Apache = *nix is sensible I think).

 

The trouble with that stat is it counts web sites, it doesn't count traffic or users - there are some huge sites running on *nix and there are some small ones (one of mine, for example); similarly, there are some massive Windows sites - just a raw count doesn't really tell us anything.