Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Webserver OS
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
steviem
macrumors 68020
LULZ... 🙄
Our production servers are running CentOS heavily stripped down. Solaris is pretty good too, but I prefer the update cycle of Linux, so it'd be Debian for me.
The main reason to choose OpenSolaris over a Linux distro, for me, is ZFS, but you probably wouldn't see the benefits of ZFS on a webserver.
Hard to take you seriously when you say "LULZ".
BSD is and always has been the standard for mission-critical server systems.
I'm not bashing Linux, BSD is simply the superior choice.
steviem
macrumors 68020
Hard to take you seriously when you say that OSX Server is one of the only 'worthy' choices for production webhosting.
The fact is, you don't need a GUI when running a webserver, and production servers should be as stripped down as much as possible to only the services required for their primary role.
FreeBSD is a great server OS, but either way you need to do a lot of configuration work. The OP asked for opinions on two specific OSes and you say 2 completely different ones. That was the reason for the ironic 'LULZ'.
Anyway, put in your 2 cents by all means, he may not have known about FreeBSD, but back it up with the advantages you see of running FreeBSD.
Also, the fact the OP asked about Debian and OpenSolaris would lead me to believe their budget for OS spending is £0, thats another reason to discount OSX Server.
The fact is, you don't need a GUI when running a webserver, and production servers should be as stripped down as much as possible to only the services required for their primary role.
FreeBSD is a great server OS, but either way you need to do a lot of configuration work. The OP asked for opinions on two specific OSes and you say 2 completely different ones. That was the reason for the ironic 'LULZ'.
Anyway, put in your 2 cents by all means, he may not have known about FreeBSD, but back it up with the advantages you see of running FreeBSD.
Also, the fact the OP asked about Debian and OpenSolaris would lead me to believe their budget for OS spending is £0, thats another reason to discount OSX Server.
toolbox
macrumors 68020
Yep i would be using freebsd too, infact i do. But as it has already be said there is a heap of configuration work that needs to occur. There are special ways you have to take to get php support, virtual domains etc. Took me weeks to nut it all out.
I have my server doing Virus / Spam filtering, Proxy, FTP, DNS. HTTP, Webmail (rouncube) phpmyadmin
I have my server doing Virus / Spam filtering, Proxy, FTP, DNS. HTTP, Webmail (rouncube) phpmyadmin
I have been using FreeBSD for server.
Configuring PHP is not as simple as compiling or installing a package. There are too much issues to take care, such as Apache 1 vs Apache 2, which modules to be installed, and whether security features to be burned in. It is getting less and less possible to have a one-configuration-fit-all binary file.
The inflexibility of configuring PHP has been my major obstacle moving to Mac OS X. Definitely OS X's interface is superior. However there is no guarantee that all the modules I want will be kept in the binary updates. A few years ago, PHP GD module (which modifies photo) was in OS X. After a specific update of 10.2, it is gone forever.
I would choose a system which has extensive port support (a service that automatically downloads, configures and compiles software). FreeBSD is a perfect choice in this aspect. You can choose to compile for a specific version of Apache, and have total freedom in choosing what modules to be installed. Yes it do take you some time. However it also gives you the flexibility to optimize and peaceful mind. When something can be compiled successfully on your computer, very likely it can actually run, too.
I know some friends using Fedora. They were just mad (angry) about installing a specific PHP module. Somehow Fedora didn't happen to have that package available. FreeBSD, on the other hand, have most of the modules in source code, and precompiled for admin's choice. If you do not believe in my claim, you can have a search of "php" in both systems' online package search. You will notice a huge difference.
If you choose to use Linux, just like what others have suggested above, try Debian. It's "port system" (I forgot their name for that counterpart) is very advanced.
Configuring PHP is not as simple as compiling or installing a package. There are too much issues to take care, such as Apache 1 vs Apache 2, which modules to be installed, and whether security features to be burned in. It is getting less and less possible to have a one-configuration-fit-all binary file.
The inflexibility of configuring PHP has been my major obstacle moving to Mac OS X. Definitely OS X's interface is superior. However there is no guarantee that all the modules I want will be kept in the binary updates. A few years ago, PHP GD module (which modifies photo) was in OS X. After a specific update of 10.2, it is gone forever.
I would choose a system which has extensive port support (a service that automatically downloads, configures and compiles software). FreeBSD is a perfect choice in this aspect. You can choose to compile for a specific version of Apache, and have total freedom in choosing what modules to be installed. Yes it do take you some time. However it also gives you the flexibility to optimize and peaceful mind. When something can be compiled successfully on your computer, very likely it can actually run, too.
I know some friends using Fedora. They were just mad (angry) about installing a specific PHP module. Somehow Fedora didn't happen to have that package available. FreeBSD, on the other hand, have most of the modules in source code, and precompiled for admin's choice. If you do not believe in my claim, you can have a search of "php" in both systems' online package search. You will notice a huge difference.
If you choose to use Linux, just like what others have suggested above, try Debian. It's "port system" (I forgot their name for that counterpart) is very advanced.