|
Server OS
|
|
|
|
|
| Plip | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 8:00 AM | Message # 1 |
 Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| This poll is to decide what Operating System (OS) to install on our new server which should be shipping soon and hopefully arriving with a couple weeks. All of this is open for discussion. I would ask that you please leave a comment with your vote, even if it's just "_____ sounds cool" or "I don't really know, but I voted for _____".
Questions you might have:
Q: Why is Ubuntu the only Linux choice?
A: It's not. Ubuntu and Fedora are both builds of linux.
Q: Why not use the current version of Ubuntu, 11.04?
A: Ubuntu 11.04 is much flashier, more demanding then 10.04, and it's really designed for desktop users. It's a great OS for desktops but for servers it's not ideal.
Q: Why not use Windows XP or Windows 7?
A: Because Windows XP and Windows 8 are both very expensive. Through the MS Dreamspark Program I can get Server 2003, Server 2008, and Server 2008 R2 for free. Also, the server OS's are optimised for servers (obviously).
Q: If we can get Server 2008 R2, why would we even consider 2003?
A: Because Server 2003 is like Windows XP, and I love XP. It's lighter and more developer friendly.
Q: Why aren't we considering Server 2008 (not R2)?
A: Because Server 2008 is based off of Windows Vista, and Vista sucks.
Detailed Info for Linux distributions can be found in the following places:
Wikipedia list of all releases
Lubuntu Homepage
Fedora Project
Fedora 15 LXDE Homepage
Thanks, tell me what you think! This is an important decision!
|
| |
| |
| Fido488 | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 8:23 AM | Message # 2 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Users
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| Umm... What about Ubuntu Server OS?
Why only Ubuntu as the lynux choice?
What OS is easiest to update Bukkit/mods on?
Please provide this info.
I'll look online to see what OS bukkit runs the best on.
Thanks,
-Fido488
(That's right I have spoken!)
 [SSSS]
|
| |
| |
| Plip | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 8:26 AM | Message # 3 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| Ubuntu is NOT the only Linux choice, Fedora is not Ubuntu it's Red Hat. Also I hate Ubuntu Server because it is command line, no GUI. Not that I can't use it it's just a pain. Especially when you have to find a way to get wireless drivers installed, which I do. As far as ease of Bukkit use, in my experience a terminal is a terminal. Makes no difference.
|
| |
| |
| Plip | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 9:13 AM | Message # 4 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| Clarification: The Ubuntu version which I am using right now DOES have a GUI, it's the desktop version. It's only Ubuntu Server OS which does not have a GUI, and that's what Fido was referring to.
Also, to Fido: There is only one thing that does make using Bukkit on a Windows based OS slightly more difficult, and that is file folder navigation. However, there is a simple fix to this which actually makes it much easier, and that is to edit the PATH system variable to include wherever the server files are.
|
| |
| |
| Owenvt | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 9:14 AM | Message # 5 |
 House Builder
Group: Moderators
Messages: 14
Status: Offline
| Ubuntu seems to work well, except for the file corruption but I don't know what caused that. Windows is always kind of unnecessarily bloated so I probably wouldn't do that. I have no experience with Fedora and don't know what it is. I really know nothing about servers so this probably isn't too helpful.
Building something great out of materials you painstakingly gathered is the greatest reward.
|
| |
| |
| Plip | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-21, 9:20 AM | Message # 6 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| The funny thing is that I know barely any more about server than you do. The file corruption was caused by a power outage; would've happened in any OS. It's true that Windows is normally a bit bloated but the Server OS's are a little different in that all that stuff is removed. Also something to remember about Windows Server is that it would be optimized for dual-processor configurations (which is what we're getting). Also, I know this doesn't necesarily mean anything, but Server 2008 R2 costs roughly $700 to purchase and we can access it for free. These are all things to keep in mind.
|
| |
| |
| banditofernando | Date: Friday, 2011-07-22, 10:35 AM | Message # 7 |
 House Builder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
| I say Windows Server 2008 R2. Windows 7 is actually pretty stable, so we should give it a shot, we have it 
|
| |
| |
| Fido488 | Date: Friday, 2011-07-22, 11:36 AM | Message # 8 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Users
Messages: 42
Status: Offline
| I have read the fourms and they all seem to say that Linux OS seem to to work the fastest and are the most stable...
I think Ubuntu is working really well for now and why fix it if it isn't broken?
-Fido488
(That's right I have spoken!)
[SSSS]
|
| |
| |
| Plip | Date: Saturday, 2011-07-23, 11:10 AM | Message # 9 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| True, but then Ubuntu or Lubuntu?
|
| |
| |
| Gundlach | Date: Thursday, 2011-07-28, 11:48 PM | Message # 10 |
|
Hut Builder
Group: Users
Messages: 9
Status: Offline
| Lubuntu uses less RAM and is considered a "lighter" operating system. But my guess is that Ubuntu will work better. It probably depends on the new server and what system resources it has.
|
| |
| |
| Plip | Date: Sunday, 2011-07-31, 11:05 AM | Message # 11 |
|
Town Worker
Group: Administrators
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
| True, and its the system resources that make me consider Server 2004. I'm having a lot of problems with my seller right now. The server still has not shipped. But assuming everything goes to plan then the server we're getting has dual Intel Xeon 3.2 ghz single core processors and will have 5 gb ram.
|
| |
| |
