Choosing An Os

badmoon · February 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">XP or Linux...?</div> I wish to run a server, and I think I got just about everythign down. It's basicaly gonna be a just a box, with nothing but the OS and NS, and a few other things like adminmod or whatever.

So I was wondering what OS should I use? Which is the best and which may be the best in a few months.

For example, I know linux support seems to be getting better and better (and I am fairly ceratin the way to go for a cs server). Is that a possibility for ns?

Also if linux is a better choice, which kind is good (and any reason why). Keep in mind I am not asking to start a flame war over your favorite version.

I know, I've asked for a lot here, and if you can answer any part that'd be good.

Thanks a lot!

voogru · February 2003

If you wanna keep things nice and simple and super easy, Go with windows 2000.

If you wanna torture your head and learn how to play with linux, Go with linux. Tho its no walk in the park. Choosing the right distro is important too (I cant recomend one becuase i never really used linux)

I wouldnt touch XP with a 10 foot pole.

badmoon · February 2003

Thanks, I forgot about win2k <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Although linux torture does sound compelling.

SpiritMaster · February 2003

Ultimately your choice of OS is based on what you plan to do with the box. For networking programs such as game servers, WWW servers ect, some flavor of Unix be it Linux or FreeBSD is the way to go. If you plan to use the box for other things such as FAT32 programs like games ect, then Win2000 would be my choice.

Basically it boils down to:
Networking/Internet Services: Unix
Home Use: Win2000

eaglec · February 2003

Actually the windows route can make a very good server. It's easy to run, maintain and alter. For NS the hlds takes up far more resources than the OS so by the tie you have the hardware for running hlds you can pretty much take your pick of whichever os you prefer. I have admined linux and windows servers and at the moment I have an XP Pro server because that way I can use it as a spare desktop PC when the server isn't running for Office, games, etc. If find XP Pro is better in almost all respects that Win2000, unless your talking about server, but 2kserver would be a huge waste of money for this kind of thing. Its strengths lie in other directions.

Windows is much easier to get to grips with but this can lead to lazy admins and there are limits as to how far you can go before things get serious!
Linux is good if you like messing with big text/config files and know what your doing or want to learn lots, just dont run Xwindows!

Linux is also free so if licensing the os is a problem then thats you answer.

I like RedHat, because it does it's job, it's easy, nearly everything gets tested with rh, loads of other people use it so there's good use support and with up2date it is one of the most secure(imho). You can configure it pretty much how you want but it does look a bit bloated compared to other distro's like Debian for example. Depends how much the extra 400mb of disk space is really worth to you?

MercsDragon · February 2003

I think windows is the way to go with NS right now. Usually I prefer Linux because of performance, however NS seems to work a lot better on windows still. And I don't think there is any problem with win XP as long as you strip down all the optional services that you don't need. It works really well for me.

cracker_jackmac · February 2003

your obviously new n00b to linux. Run your system on w2k. Before running any internet service on your linux box....make sure you know something about access permissions, umasks, suid, etc.

Yeah....winblows systems are insecure too, but installing and setting them up is EASY. You are easly recover from a w2k crash/hack.

Linux should never be hacked <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> although....it happens.

badmoon · February 2003

Thanks for all your suggestions, and win2k does seem like the best idea for me.

JoeBlow · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you wanna torture your head and learn how to play with linux, Go with linux. Tho its no walk in the park. Choosing the right distro is important too (I cant recomend one becuase **i never really used linux**)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't know if its just me, but I always find that funny. The people who are the most vocal about how "horribly difficult" linux is have never "really used linux". I recommend a linux server, especially with NS finally getting its coding problems fixed. But a windoze server will definitely not be too much thinking or effort, so some people want to go that way. Distros, the best for gaming i think are either gentoo or slackware, but everyone has their fav.

cracker_jackmac · February 2003

well..i have yet to rebuild my system....but when i do....it will be slackware again.

Scum_of_the_Universe · February 2003

Linux of course!
If you're not sure I suggest you try linux first (<a href='http://www.linuxiso.org/' target='_blank'>linux isos here</a>). The big commercial distros (<a href='http://suse.de' target='_blank'>SuSE</a>, <a href='http://redhat.com' target='_blank'>Redhat</a> etc. are very easy to install. Others such as <a href='http://debian.org' target='_blank'>Debian</a> require you to actually read stuff. Debian is very nice to maintain though <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> ( `apt-get update; apt-get install` will upgrade everything to the latest debian version for example.)

Linux is better for this because:
it's <a href='http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html' target='_blank'> free software</a>
it's more stable (the operating system, dunno about hlds+ns)
it's more secure (but you still have to watch for and apply fixes of course..)
it's got lots of other nice useful programs with it, some already installed (e.g. apache, ssh, icecast, jabberd etc.)

If you're not carefull you might actually learn something!

You will probably find the <a href='http://www.dsl.org/cookbook/' target='_blank'>linux cookbook</a> usefull.

Narfwak · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cracker jackmac @ Feb 19 2003, 03:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> your obviously new n00b to linux. Run your system on w2k. Before running any internet service on your linux box....make sure you know something about access permissions, umasks, suid, etc.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I agree with cracker - work with what you know. If you know and like linux, be my guest and use it. However, if you have no profeciency with linux, using it will be much more pain than pleasure. Just go with win2kpro if you don't want a huge hassle. Besides, NS runs very well on win2k, and in the end of the day that's what really matters.

badmoon · February 2003

thanks for the replies.

Another question:

Is either of the OS more processor or system heavy? For example is one better then the other when the machine has, say low ram, or low processor. Since I havn't heard much about this I'd think they are probibly about the same.

JoeBlow · February 2003

Linux uses *massively* less system resources to run. And if you use distro's like gentoo or slackware it is even less than some other more "user friendly" versions. If you don't know linux, and don't want to know linux, then go with 2K. I taught myself linux when i decided i wanted to have a CS server, and realized my box at the time couldn't handle it in windows. Everyone has to start somewhere.

eaglec · February 2003

True, when set up well and NOT running XWindows linux uses a lot less resources. If you do a full install with all the bells and whistles though of something like Rh8 it actualy uses more. However NS has until 1.04 run rather poorly under linux, I dont know if thats the case now or if it will be in the future but it's al swings and roundabouts. If you like CLI then definately go for linux, if you prefer point and click then it's windows,

Scum_of_the_Universe · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eaglec @ Feb 20 2003, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> True, when set up well and NOT running XWindows linux uses a lot less resources. If you do a full install with all the bells and whistles though of something like Rh8 it actualy uses more. However NS has until 1.04 run rather poorly under linux, I dont know if thats the case now or if it will be in the future but it's al swings and roundabouts. If you like CLI then definately go for linux, if you prefer point and click then it's windows,  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Liking the cli isn't really relevent, as thats what you'll use with hlds anyway...

badmoon · February 2003

Well, I'm gonna try out linux. I have been meaning to learn it, it seems like it could be the best, and I got a week vacation coming up so I can fool with it. Plus if I get stuck, then I'll just put on win2k. Thanks for all the info/advice.

cracker_jackmac · February 2003

My suggestion is if you wana learn linux....setup a user-access FTP, website w/FTP accounts, SMB server, or something along those lines on a SEPERATE box. Nothing kills your server rep more than an unstable box (because you are playing with it).

Run your NS server on 2k for know.

But get another box (400Mhz PII or something) and just play with it....

Bytor · February 2003

My vote would be for linux. Mainly because MS operating systems have a history of hidden exploits and just bad security practices in general. Too much sugar coating hides all the nastiness underneath the surface. MS is getting better about security standards, yes, but they still have a ways to go before I'll ever feel comfortable putting an MS system on the internet.

Granted, you still have to be security conscious with Linux or any OS for that matter, but Linux helps you learn more about security, and doesn't try to hide it behind bells and whistles. That is the attitude that all OS vendors should have, in my opinion.

So regardless of the OS you choose, but especially with any Windows flavor, be very careful about putting up a tight firewall and only opening the ports you need to have open.

Smithboy · February 2003

Don't expect to get a linux server up right away. You need to learn the OS first if you don't know anything about it.

I suggest Debian if you can get some help with it. When I first tried to get linux running, I chose debian, but due to not knowing much and a problem with it and my video card, I couldn't get x running (the GUI) and I was stuck just at the command line, which I didn't know much what to do. I tried Mandrake then RedHat, but they weren't so good and they were bloated. Then back to Debian and I bought the Debian GNU/Linux Bible (not sure if it's the best, but it's at least ok) and read stuff like the cookbook mentioned previously and I got it running. Now I don't have a fast enough second machine for a server, so I'm not really using linux much right now. I find windows has the programs I like to use and linux doesn't have anything worth booting into for now (though I am a gamer who likes a lot of windows apps and I bet certain programmers and such like linux much more).

I actually got a UT2k3 server going on my old machine from debian's command line. No GUI at all needed and it ran ok as a server on my old p2 350MHz with 128MB ram box. Too bad my internet connection isn't built for that, only home use.

So try linux and see how you like it, then u can switch back. If you don' twant to have to learn the OS so much, get RedHat and try that, or just stick to windows.

SuicideDog · February 2003

I like linux myself.. I been using is since way back in the day .. but only for small stuff and I used to get help... but then when I wanted to really start learning it I needed a good medium between the two .. and believe it or not .. I started playing with lindows.. it's great for the newb .. it's base is debain (which I now use for my server).. I got my first ever linux HL server running on it (CS), it was a good way to start and it was a little easier to make the transistion. It's a full featured linux that you can run any linux app on, plus it has good/easy gui to help you make the transistion and figure out the layout of how linux does it's directory structre and where it puts the libs and all that good stuff. (which IMHO is the hardest part of figuring out linux), after you figure out that stuff, the rest is gravy.

Milenko · February 2003

It's all preference. Regardless, linux will be faster. If you run your server from a linux commandline, you will notice improved performance than if you ran it say in Win2kpro.

I run my servers on windows machines because I like the fact that I can do whatever I need to do over my network, instead of having to setup samba or something to that effect. I do love how stable linux runs, requires a reboot much less often than windows machines.

Linux is also free <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Scum_of_the_Universe · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Milenko @ Feb 20 2003, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I do love how stable linux runs, requires a reboot much less often than windows machines.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
thats a slight understatement <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> You only need to reboot for kernel upgrades which you generally don't <i>need</i>. I've only had linux crash from severe hardware problems (such as when the processor fan died <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> )

Tweedle · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scum of the Universe @ Feb 22 2003, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Milenko @ Feb 20 2003, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I do love how stable linux runs, requires a reboot much less often than windows machines.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
thats a slight understatement <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> You only need to reboot for kernel upgrades which you generally don't <i>need</i>. I've only had linux crash from severe hardware problems (such as when the processor fan died <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> )  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Heh. A friend who hosted some game servers for our group had a dual P3(? may have been one of the earliest 4s) rig. Over a period of a few weeks, we noticed that it was slower than it originally was. After goofing around on it, reinstalling some stuff, trying to figure out where the slowdown was, he popped the case open. One of the CPU fans had died and the pentium automatically clocked itself down to avoid overheating. Doh!

My linux box has been hosted since November of last year. It was built out of spare parts, including a K7S5A (supercheap budget board) with char marks on one of the DDR slots from a stick that fried <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> It has been down three times. Once for the addition of a new stick of RAM, once because I was dumb and sent it into a recursive process-starting loop, and the last time because the guy that hosts it for me ripped the power cord out of the wrong box <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Hurrah for stability!

cracker_jackmac · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tweedle @ Feb 22 2003, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> last time because the guy that hosts it for me ripped the power cord out of the wrong box <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Hurrah for stability!  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
ROFL i did that to a hub once.....24 **** employees called promptly :-\

HKHeretic · February 2003

I would suggest Linux for a dedicated server. <a href='http://www.gentoo.org' target='_blank'>Gentoo</a> is the best distro IMO. I've used/hacked Linux for a long time (circa '95) and I've written code that was included in the kernel. I've used Debian, Slackware, Redhat, and Mandrake before, but Gentoo is by FAR my favorite. It's a fairly new distribution. Their package management system is <b>awesome</b>. If you're running a server and want to eek the absolute most performance from it, Gentoo is the way to go. At bootup, my server uses 26MB of RAM, that's with a webserver, database, mail transfer agent, DNS server, etc all running. My system uses about 800MB of space, while my gameserver uses about 900MB.

In short, Gentoo is super efficient. I think it's easier than Redhat because you don't have to choose what -not- to install. It's not bloated.

badmoon · February 2003

Just to keep people updated (like they care), I went with Linux Slackware. I didnt't really have any problems installing at all, or at least it seemed a lot easier then everyone made it out to be. THe hardest part was trying to figure out how to run Xwindows <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> . Anyways, it seems great (so exciting) and by following online documentation it is not hard to instal.

I guess the point I am trying to make is; don't be afraid of linux.

Thanks for everyones help along the way.

cracker_jackmac · February 2003

i'm glad you decided on linux (despite my advice).

since you are running linux, you should probably read this <a href='http://attrition.org/~bronc/linux2.txt' target='_blank'>Linux Security</a>

not only will it help you secure your box, but you'll learn somethin in the process.

TheWizard · February 2003

Even though its already decidedly linux. I think an important point to make is.

Don't run HLDS on WinXP home edition.

However I have found that my HLDS servers run equally well on WinXP Professional and several linux distros.
The trick with making XPpro a wonderful server platform is creating a specialized user account for running the server. Strip that account of everything except what you need for the server and you should have very few problems. Once you have XPpro setup correctly, it shouldnt crash on you.
I havent had a crash with it yet since. (5 months and counting)

XP Pro is my preferrence because I get it for free through Penn State.

As with any OS. Make it secure before running the server.

Choosing An Os

Comments