[gib88]

I'm going to be buying my own server and running my own web hosting business. If I buy Windows Server 2003, what's the best edition I should buy?

Here's what I need it to do:

-web hosting (obviously)
-FTP capabilities
-Remote login
-Email hosting
-Compatibility with a typical Database Management System
-maybe also used as a DNS

If I was going for performance, what should I get?

If I was going for cost, what should I get?


Thanks for any advice.

[brendandonhu]

What OS do you know how to secure & administer best? Are you planning on running a control panel (cPanel, Plesk, Helm, etc)?

[jiml8]

A unix system is best. It is more easily and more thoroughly securable. Windows is one giant security hole; you can secure it but it is seen as an easy target and is constantly under attack. If you keep up with your patches, you are not concerned about the exploits that are known because those have been patched. Instead, you are concerned about the exploit(s) that have not yet been publicly identified because those are the ones that will damage your system.

Among the various flavors of un*x, there are some you pay for and some you don't. If you choose to pay, you'll pay a bunch. Of the free ones, BSD is probably the most secure - it has a reputation for excellent security. Linux does not have the same reputation for security, but it is pretty solid also.

[ashras99]

Windows and Linux both are good. But linux have more free softwares which you and ur users can choose. Btw, these days mostly users going for linux servers.

[Eriksrocks]

Peformance: ???
Cost: Unix/Linux (what's the difference?)

[ashras99]

Performance wise i dont find any difference but cost of linux is very less and also linux is the graphical version of unix. Both share same core but linux is graphical.

[brendandonhu]

I don't think you'll want to run a graphical desktop environment on a hosting server

[ashras99]

ya, experts not using the graphical interface. But i am just telling about the difference.

[brendandonhu]

Then Linux is not any more graphical than UNIX is
Its command-line only unless you separately install a GUI and that's not going to be done on a server.

[~Biker~]

i think you can turn it off, i dont bother i just run it as it is, and YES go for linux i'd also reccomend building the server your self (works out cheaper) and linux is free,its what i use

[brendandonhu]

Why would you run a desktop on a production webhosting server?? Its just going to add more security issues and slow the server down. I don't know of any serious hosts that do that.

[~Biker~]

I got the pc configured to server yes, but its not very unsecure, its got all the spyware, virus etc cleaners u can get for linux.

and its a known fact that linux has less viruses around than windows server does.

and even so its still very fast. i'v tried it even on a dial up and it loads fine.

[brendandonhu]

I see, but it sounds like he's talking about a webhosting business server here. KDE/Gnome just isn't needed there- see here

[~Biker~]

well i have 2 servers yeah i know its a bit much but it will do.

[jiml8]

Originally Posted by ashras99

ya, experts not using the graphical interface. But i am just telling about the difference.

The real difference is that Linux is a freely distributable Unix clone. Linux is no more graphical than Unix is. Strictly speaking, the Linux distros that are out there are GNU/Linux system, with Linux being the kernel only.

The graphical components are not part of Linux. X-Windows runs on all flavors of Unix, as does KDE and Gnome. An AT&T Unix or a Sun Unix or Berkeley Unix (BSD) can be just as graphical as a Linux-based system.

None of the flavors of Unix are, per se, graphical. All are command line based, and the graphical shells placed on top of Unix all work via command lines that are embedded in them.