Linux web server

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Quick question - what flavour of Linux to use for a web server ? Can it be done on the ever popular Ubuntu ? I guess Apache is what I'm looking for here, but not used it, so all advice gratefully received.

Thanks

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I thought this question sounded familiar.

http://www.linux-tutorial.info/ftopict-568.html

I think the upshot of that thread was that it wasn't so much the distro that mattered most but the flavor of web server you have running on it such as Apache.

 

IMHO any Linux (or even any Unix) will do. And you run Apache!

These two are the top combo for web-serving IMHO.

Harry.

 

Is this going to be a secure server or just an informational web server? If it's going to be a secure web server I'd look into what distro's have implemented Selinux. If you don't know what Selinux is it's the set of standards and hardened kernel that the NSA came up with for hardening and securing their servers.

I'd also take into account how long a distro's release cycle is and how long they support an old release. The more stable that is the less hassle you will have with the possibility of upgrades breaking applications.

Apache is a foregone conclusion so I won't say much about it.

 

So, do you think that Apache running on a Linux distro that doesn't have Selinux installed is more secure than IIS running on a Windows server behind ISA? ISA can redirect web requests to a Web server in a DMZ. As far as the visitor is concerned they are communicating directly with the web server but in reality they are communicating with ISA. What I am saying is there are secure ways of setting things up and insecure ways. I believe IIS is fine if it is configured well, same goes for Apache IMHO.

As this forum has a lot of members that are studying Microsoft's products, it is only right to keep a balance and not fall into this lets slag Windows off thang. Unless somebody can prove to me that Server 2003 fully patched, set up properly is not as secure as Apache. I know in the past that IIS has had venerabilities but what I am referring to is the latest version on the latest server.

 

Which is also what you'd be looking to do if you set the whole thing up on Linux too.

There have been a lot of comparison studies done here in Europe (mostly in Germany) that show that both ways have about the same level of security. There was actually one study done that showed that a default install of Server 2K3 was more secure than a Linux one (I forget which distro they used).

The bottom line is that you should use the one that you are more comfortable with.

 

I agree bluerinse, having spent considerable time securing my apache server I can tell you that by default, its a gaping hole and leaks information like a sieve!

IIS on 2k3 is actually secure by default, and becomes less secure as you add on fancy web applications
they did a good job


also, apache is not a given, if you want a tiny static site, there are far less complex http servers for linux than apache, so its worth looking around unless you need all that functionality

 

Well, as the OP was asking about a web server running on a Linux distro it doesn't make much sense to refer them to IIS and Server 2003 does it? Think that maybe cost is a factor here in what looks like a decision to use Linux?

1. 2 or 3 licensed copies of Server 2003 + SQL server + ISA server = $$$$$$$$

2. Linux Server + MySQL or Postgres + Smoothwall or Astaro = $

Just about any way you slice it choice 2 is cheaper to set up than choice 1. The only thing you'll pay for is your firewall/proxy server in choice 2, and it's going to cost less than ISA server and probably be easier to configure and use too.

 

Thanks Guys - really this is nothing more than a simple exercise (at the moment) for me. I'm currently running IIS on w2k server on an old laptop, but ultimately would like to get the same hosting on Linux/Apache so I can host for myself.

Thanks

 

No Freddy you are right, it was a bad call on my part, sorry