Linux / Server / Ubuntu

I've recently been getting into the open source world of Linux. Good to be able to get an operating system that can out do microsoft in some areas and is free!

Also looks far better, especially with XGL installed!

My next project is to set up a server running it, really just to get my head round it some more. Should work well with its auto defraging file system and stableness....

 

I was going to take the plunge a few weeks back, but as it was a laptop I decided against it, as apparently it can be a lot of hassle. However, I'll be getting a spare desktop machine later this week, so hopefully I'll be joining you in the linux world soon (although I intend to keep my windblows machine for most of the stuff I do).

 

Probably worth dual booting with whatever you put it on, ubuntu comes with grub, a handy bit of dual booting software. Although the way it uses partitions take some getting used to, it'll likely wipe whats on the rest of your hard drive when setting up, so make sure its nothing you need...

With compatibility I found it very good, it installed more drivers than XP did. Although if it hadn't done, its definitely harder to get drivers for some pieces of kit.

 

There is a Linux answer to that which I am already following:

SuSe (and some others as well. But generally speaking SuSe is on the cutting edge).


You won't be disappointed.

I am doing the progression slowly and hopefully ditch Win XP before Vista/One Care is fully implemented in 2007 with the subsequent fall of XP. M$ is no longer going to support XP after implementing Vista. And the price is no cheap either $49 bucks a year for the home user.

All I can say to Billy is: Get lost mate! You are not gonna have my hard earned bucks.


Some readings and useful links for the migration process:

1.http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/233/42/

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suse

3.http://en.opensuse.org/How_to_migrate_from_Windows

4.http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/03/29/migrating_from_windows_to_linux/index.html

 

This could become another style v style thread

If you was going to look at suse, i'd look at Slackware and Redhat also. Still, Ubuntu is the star of the moment, and pretty good for linux newbies

 

There's a good reason Ubuntu is the current star of the linux world; it's the best integrated linux distro currently available.

I don't think you'd have any problems on your laptop with it. But I'd still wait until Drapper Drake (next Ubuntu version) comes out in June before installing XGL.

Last summer, I switched my bosses computers from Windows to Ubuntu (without their consent; I do have quite a bit of freedom). At first, they complained, but it turned to be for the best; it works just so much better.

If you're more of a poweruser and don't care for the graphical interface and the like, I recommend Slackware (the most "pure" linux distribution available), Debian (the basis for Ubuntu; requires more technical work, but it's superior as a server), or simply going to FreeBSD (it's not linux, but Linux familiarity transfers almost directly to it; the server I admin runs it and it's ridiculously reliable and robust).

 

I prefer Windows simply for the fact more programs are written for it. And it is headed more in the direction of micro kernals while linux is somewhat locked into a monolithic kernel.

As soon as software turns into "pay per use" instead of "buy program" i'm going to Linux. Unfortunatly many dumbos out there will be willing to put their credit card through a slider just to get their computer to turn on.

 

While I don't want to judge you for this, I've got to point out that it's a terribly bad reason not to use Linux.

Of course there's more commercial support for Windows (though I'm pretty certain you'd find that more quality free programs are written for Linux than any other OS); the user-base is larger.

But you're certainly not helping solve that problem for Linux by not switching, eh?

Also, the microkernel vs monolitic kernel is pretty much irrelevant unless you are a programmer that loves to go deep into system calls. Even if that really affected the user experience, Linux totally dominate Windows speed-wise for almost every task imaginable (except those that are hampered by the lack of commercial support, which can only be solved if YOU switch ).

Until Ubuntu Hoary Hedgehog (for those not acquainted with Ubuntu's version names, Hoary Hedgehog was the name of the version preceding the current release, Breezy Badger), I was reluctant to suggest a causual user to switch... But now, unless you have a work/school obligation not to, there's no reason to wait.

And with the almost complete lack of hype around Windows Vista (the whole computing community at large seems completely unimpressed; so much Microsoft has to try and force people to need the switch), I get the feeling that Linux has golden years coming up.

 

I recently had to re-install Windows XP on my girlfriends laptop and I can honestly say that (having installed and setup many distributions of GNU/Linux) the installation process and install is below standard, but then again the last release of Windows was quite awhile ago.
Linux distributions 'out-of-the-box' are far and away better packages than Windows installations.

The only thing I've found that wipes the rest of your hard drive is when you try to install windows when you already have linux as it assumes it can just plonk itself down ontop of whatever is already there.
Repartition your hard drive when you already have Windows on your machine and then install what you want on the remaining space. It will ask you to set up your partitions yourself but find a decent guide online and it's a dodle.

 

Indeed, yet it's also what makes it one of the best starting distributions for someone technically proefficient. Most everything in Slackware is "pure" linux. When you learn with Slackware, you learn to use linux starting from the very core of the system; you are not reliant on configuration utilities and package managers.

Yes, it does. It is the easiest distro to use overall. Contrarily to Mandrake (Mandriva or something like that, I think it's now called) and Lycoris/Lindows(Linspire, now, I think) and all those supposedly easy to use distro, it is also at its core a robust and stable system.

I wouldn't recommend it if you had a server though. There is a server installation of it, but if you want a server with the same base as Ubuntu, use Debian.

 

My DSL line with NTL has been going for months now without any downtime at all, add to that the fact that they just keep upping my bandwidth for free (1mb upload 3mb download last time I checked) and I'm giving serious consideration to hosting a few web sites from home. I really like apache since I switched to it with my hosting company, there are so many plusses to it that I'd never consider going back to IIS. Obviously linux is going to be the best option for running a server.

So my question is which is the best release if all I'm interested in doing with the box is running apache web server? I'd prefer not to even have to bother with a keyboard/mouse/monitor after the initial setup and just manage the box remotely over the LAN.

 

Well, I'll be giving my opinion of your major options so you can make your choice. I think I made my opinion of Ubuntu clear enough in the previous posts...

As I stated before, FreeBSD might be what you are looking for. It's not Linux, but it runs Apache just as well, and its the most robust and efficient OS I've ever seen. But it's a bit different to Linux, and it might be a little harder to configure if you're starting out in the *NIX field.

Else, the best server distros for Linux would be Slackware and Debian. Slackware is a barebone Linux; no fancy stuff. It works very well, and if you want to learn Linux it's perfect.

Debian is an extremely robust system that come in either cutting edge or rock solid releases. Its "apt-get" system is one of the best package managing around (second only to FreeBSD's Ports collection). However, it's best left for advanced Linux users, or for people willing to learn along the way.

Red Hat is good if you have the paying support. Else, it's pretty subpar. Its Fedora Core distro is an amateur distro. Objectively, it's quite good. But there's no compelling reason to prefer it to other distributions. It's a all-rounder at best.

SuSE is pretty much a dabbler's distro. Not exactly robust enough for a server or clean enough for a desktop, it's perfect for someone with some Linux experience that want to try his hand at something in between.

Mandriva is, IMHO, filth. Its GUI and "user-friendliness" is constricting. Its package management (the same as Red Hat) is definitely antiquated. Even for total Linux n00bs, there's absolutely NO reason to prefer it to Ubuntu.

The supposed "Windows-replacement" Linux distros; Linspire, Lycoris and the like are good for elderly people. People that are so stubborn in their ideas that Windows is the almighty god of usability and can't learn anything else. *shudders* There's no reason to use them, and they work well almost exclusively with the few programs that have been "packaged" for them.

If you really want to get "hardcore" with your security and robustness, you could try OpenBSD (again, that's not linux, but it's close enough). I was not able to configure it properly, and the hardware support is limited, but a patched OpenBSD system is an impregnable fortress.

 

Slackware is one of the most simple distributions to use in my experiance. Somehow it gets this reputation of being difficult to use which is just wrong. Is it more difficult to drive a car whithout a spoiler?

Guizzy gives good advice, for a server use Slackware or a varient of BSD. Security, security, security .. Stability, stability, stability (I feel like a certain MS employee ) what gets included in Slackware is very thoroughly tested, the sole developer is very fussy.

With the exception of Debian, ignore anything else for a server.


There, Linux and Apache, halfway to your full LAMP =)

 

Thanks for all the suggestions, I'm learning a lot here.

I mentioned that I would like to run this server without a keyboard/monitor/mouse ideally and would just prefer to manage it over the LAN. I assume this is an option with all the linux variants? Do any of them have a clear advantage in terms of remote management? Also, I'm currently using a hardware firewall, although when I setup a server it would probably make sense to use it as the firewall? Do any of these packages have good firewall software?

 

None really has a remote management advantage over the others. Perhaps OpenBSD is a little safer, but you'd have to be positively paranoïd to need that edge. All support sshd (the daemon for remote console login), which is what you'll want to run for remote management.

As for firewall software... In *NIX land, making a firewall of your server is done by manually working your routing tables; every distro is able of it. There are premade configuration files and GUI frontends that can do most of the work for you, fortunately. I'd suggest you look into Firestarter, a nice graphical frontend that works pretty well for basic firewalling.

 

So there's nothing like terminal services or a web based control panel?

Basic firewalling is all I need really, I'm just protecting a home LAN, anyone who went to enough trouble to hack in would be mighty dissapointed.

 

I'm not really familliar with Terminal services, but if it's what I think, it's similar to SSH.
Webmin is a pretty good web-based control panel.

If you want to run your server from a GUI, you could install a VNC server; but that would be pretty much un-linux-like.

 

I have recently gotten into Ubuntu. Not much experience with it though. My system is a dual boot with XP and i'm working on networking linux with a windows system....any help on that would be appreciated.... ....but if you want to know more about the distros availabe here you go.....

(source: http://dravensportal.uptonspc.com/drvpforum/index.php/topic,51.0.html)

 

What you want is to install a Samba (smbd and nmbd) server.

If you have Ubuntu, get the relevant Samba packages and configure them with the SWAT configuration utility (a web-based app).

Should be fairly straightforward.