Welcome to Geeklog, Anonymous Wednesday, October 09 2024 @ 05:52 pm EDT

Comments for Linux Vs. Windows XP in serving and hosting Geeklog?

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: 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.

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