Linux doesn't run on older hardware?

[Warrior]

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

He brings Windows update into it for a great reason.  If the server isn't updating itself, it'll likely soon be open to new threats that have been made possible on the internet.  It needs to run continuous updates.  If you have to manually boot into Windows every week or so and download/install updates, Windows loses points on the "server matainence" scale.

And Joe: I agree with Warrior.  Shutface, please.

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

[Sidoh]

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

  First off, Linux can run on better machines.  Secondly, the beauty in Linux servers is: they can do more, with less.  Look at these forums.  They're running on a 550 MHz Linux server.  The bottleneck is iago's connection, not the server.  I'd like to see a Windows server do that.

[Warrior]

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

  First off, Linux can run on better machines.  Secondly, the beauty in Linux servers is: they can do more, with less.  Look at these forums.  They're running on a 550 MHz Linux server.  The bottleneck is iago's connection, not the server.  I'd like to see a Windows server do that.

Well yes I know it can, however the comparison is done with old hardware, unless I misread. I'm not going to argue Linux has a good server product and I prefer it personaly over Windows since it's more commonly found. It's great and all that it can run on a 550MHz processor and even pretty damn impressive it holds a server with this much users so nicely. I don't know about Windows servers doing that since that isn't my area of expertise, it may or may not be possible but I'll accept that it isn't until someone proves it can't be done. I still however don't think it's practical, nor do I think most servers run on 97 hardware today. There are a few exceptions however and they are fine for sites like x86 which while recieving a bunch of users don't recieve nearly as much as the big websites.

[Sidoh]

Well yes I know it can, however the comparison is done with old hardware, unless I misread. I'm not going to argue Linux has a good server product and I prefer it personaly over Windows since it's more commonly found. It's great and all that it can run on a 550MHz processor and even pretty damn impressive it holds a server with this much users so nicely. I don't know about Windows servers doing that since that isn't my area of expertise, it may or may not be possible but I'll accept that it isn't until someone proves it can't be done. I still however don't think it's practical, nor do I think most servers run on 97 hardware today. There are a few exceptions however and they are fine for sites like x86 which while recieving a bunch of users don't recieve nearly as much as the big websites.

My server isn't exactly a power machine either.  It's a 1600 AMD with 512 MB RAM.  It runs Apache/PHP, DHCPD, Samba (File Server), MySQL, Sendmail, VNC, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, SSHD and a few other things on the side.  It did the same with Windows, but the performance was much less.  I realize this is because Windows server operating systems are intended to be installed on more powerful machines, but it still proves my point.  Linux can do more with less.  There are some things I miss about running a Windows server, but overall, I enjoy running a Linux server by a large magnitude more.

Most servers don't run 97 hardware, but that doesn't mean that Linux can't perform well on more powerful machines too.  I realize there are some things that Windows servers simply do better than Linux servers (active directory, to name one), but especially for web servers, Linux takes the cake, I'd say.

[iago]

Incidentally, this was originally run on a 233mhz machine without a problem.  It is currently running on a 433mhz. 

The 233mhz machine (which is now Pie) cost me $60 in parts off of eBay (and $0 for software).  The new system I got for free for upgrading my friend's old computer and getting her old parts.  The computer I use for a router ("gate") was traded for a chair. 

Why use old hardware?  It's cheap. 

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

Ah, modifying a configuration file.  How do you do that without a UI?  Or do you have to boot into a UI, fight with the slowness, and eventually modify boot.ini then restart?  That's a pain.  Linux does it by default. 

How do you download Apache without a UI?  I know on Linux you can use links and wget, but how do you do it on Windows?  I'm not aware of a way to download web content without a UI...

Sidoh explained why Windows Update is important. 

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

That wasn't Microsoft's challenge, and it wasn't their statement.  Sorry to break it to you, but Microsoft fails the challenge that THEY set up. 

[Warrior]

Incidentally, this was originally run on a 233mhz machine without a problem.  It is currently running on a 433mhz. 

The 233mhz machine (which is now Pie) cost me $60 in parts off of eBay (and $0 for software).  The new system I got for free for upgrading my friend's old computer and getting her old parts.  The computer I use for a router ("gate") was traded for a chair. 

Why use old hardware?  It's cheap. 

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

Ah, modifying a configuration file.  How do you do that without a UI?  Or do you have to boot into a UI, fight with the slowness, and eventually modify boot.ini then restart?  That's a pain.  Linux does it by default. 

Well you need the UI to install the OS anyhow, on 97 software VESA isn't as slow as you let it on to be, it has some acceleration last I checked..you're going to usually want to do simple things like setup/configure drivers and download whatever programs you need.

How do you download Apache without a UI?  I know on Linux you can use links and wget, but how do you do it on Windows?  I'm not aware of a way to download web content without a UI...

There is a Windows form of wget, but it's usually smarter to download it WITH a UI while you're doing the initial configurations.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

That wasn't Microsoft's challenge, and it wasn't their statement.  Sorry to break it to you, but Microsoft fails the challenge that THEY set up. 

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

[Sidoh]

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

[Warrior]

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

I agree with that, I'm arguing that Windows shouldn't be completely disregarded on old hardware. The experience may not be too pleasant for desktop usage but if you can get an apache server running at least you can have something useful for the price. (Of course the OS would cost more than the hardware so whatever makes you happy)

[Sidoh]

I agree with that, I'm arguing that Windows shouldn't be completely disregarded on old hardware. The experience may not be too pleasant for desktop usage but if you can get an apache server running at least you can have something useful for the price. (Of course the OS would cost more than the hardware so whatever makes you happy)

I'd be much happier running a free OS that will be much less of a hasstle to get running/keep running!

[iago]

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

I agree with that

Great, then you agree that Microsoft's study was completely bogus. 

[Warrior]

No, I'm saying I agree with what Sidoh said..not very tied to the article.

[iago]

Sidoh was repeating what the article said in a different way.

[Warrior]

Bottom line: It can run on old software ,it is preferred to be run wiht more software. I still don't know what you're getting at. I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that you're taking it as Windows can only run on good hardware. I proved it can run and perform on old hardware and gave technical reasons why any OS should be able to, you countered with things like it needed upgrades which is fine, no where did it say that it had to be secure. If you want it to you're going to have to leave a little go. This is transforming a desktop OS into a server OS.

Now if you take a look at Longhorn Server, it features Windows Update in application form thus it wouldn't be too hard to write another app, only commandline based. Especially with the new features like Monad.