Q: Im going to be replacing our NetWare server and had wondered what everyones opinions were about the best server to use. We are going to host simple HTML pages and also plans to either Real or Quicktime server server both run on a * nix or running Win2k. Should we run on * nix Apache, Apache on Win2K, IIS on Win2k, or something else. Im not crazy about IIS or even Win2k becauxe of all security issues and updates, but I have limited experience with FreeBSD and Apache 1.3. Looking at the Apache route on * nix, once I get the setup I can basically leave it alone, or are there will be updates that I need to apply?
Thanks for the advice.
Best Answer: Well, duo to my work, I would recommend Soundtrack Pro, which is developed by Apple and it comes with Final Cut Studio. However, this is a paid product, so it doesn't suit our case. (Just mentioned it for the quality of recording). One program I know for sound recording, which works both on PC and MACs is Audacity. Audacity is a way too simple, free sound reconder, very light too! Offers a variety of options, but doesn't make things more complicated at all, since its interface is as simple as it gets.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
Hope it suits you!
Re:My $0.02…
I would choose Debian and Apache (or Red Hat if you need paid support). Setup is not the easiest but it's not really hard either. Although I think it is easier to set up than Win2k Server and IIS. And once it is running you can almost forget about it.
I know nothing about QT vs. RP.
Re:There will be updates to Apache that you will need to install. IIS isnt the only security problem on the internet, its just one of the biggest ones.
Apache is good. I cant imagine using anything else. Well maybe zeus, but its too expensive for me. Use Debian if you dont need commercial support. Its simple.
EDIT: 3 reasons to use Quicktime over Real:
1. Quicktime is less intrusive.
2. The Quicktime streamer is out under an Open Source license.
3. Apple kicks butt.
Re:'m kind of torn between, FreeBSD (seen it), OpenBSD (here it's the most secure), RedHat (support), Debian (here it's simple). Can you tell me what the pros and cons are to each?
Basically I would classify them as such:
FreeBSD: most unix-like. If you have Solaris, Tru64, HP-UX, etc admins on hand that maybe working on it that don't have Linux experience this may be the way to go. The biggest down side is that I doubt anyone officially supports FreeBSD commercially, so if something doesn't work you'll be on your own. Technically a very good, solid OS even though the SMP support is lacking (one big kernel lock hurts it's scalability until 5.0 gets released).
OpenBSD: FreeBSD, only smaller. More is done on the security front than the hardware support front.
RedHat: Commercial Linux. Big name commercial support, if you buy a box from HP/Compaq or another reseller chances are you'll only get an option of RedHat for Linux. It's not terribly hard to administer and maintain, but it's not the simplist either.
Debian: Ease of maintenance. The installer is a bitch if you've never seen it before and aren't too keen on Linux, but once it's setup it's cake to keep up to date and install/remove software. HP _may_ support Debian since they support it internally a lot (they pay some of the core Debian developers) and use it for their internal distro of choice, but I can't say for sure because RedHat is the name everyone uses when speaking about commercial Linux.
Why would you choose Quicktime over Real?
Probably because RealPlayer is a lot more intrusive on Windows than on unix. Personally I'm impartial because RP isn't anywhere nearly as annoying on Linux as it is on Windows =)
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Apache on Linux or FreeBSD is pretty simple to setup, the config files are well commented and the docs in the form of httpd.apache.org and O'Reilly books are well written. Of course you'll need to keep up on security problems, but they're a lot less frequent than IIS updates and you'll never have to reboot the server for a simple application patch. Also, if you use a distribution like Debian (if support is a must I'd recommend RedHat over both Debian and FreeBSD) you can keep applications updated extremely easily with apt.
I think I'm going to go with Apache on some plavor of *nix, I just needed someone to say yes that's the way to go. I'm kind of torn between, FreeBSD (seen it), OpenBSD (here it's the most secure), RedHat (support), Debian (here it's simple). Can you tell me what the pros and cons are to each?
Originally posted by: guy
PLEEEAASSEEE choose quicktime over real.
I would run apache on a unix box. Or, if you want to run quicktime, maybe you'd look into running an OS X server. Couldn't get much simpler for quicktime than that.
Why would you choose Quicktime over Real? They both seem to be able to stream most of the same file formats and for the amount of hits we expect they would both be free.
Thanks Guys.
Re:PLEEEAASSEEE choose quicktime over real.
I would run apache on a unix box. Or, if you want to run quicktime, maybe you'd look into running an OS X server. Couldn't get much simpler for quicktime than that.
Re:Apache on Linux or FreeBSD is pretty simple to setup, the config files are well commented and the docs in the form of httpd.apache.org and O'Reilly books are well written. Of course you'll need to keep up on security problems, but they're a lot less frequent than IIS updates and you'll never have to reboot the server for a simple application patch. Also, if you use a distribution like Debian (if support is a must I'd recommend RedHat over both Debian and FreeBSD) you can keep applications updated extremely easily with apt.
0 Comments.