Archive for linux
Battle of the Giants: Linux and Windows Compared
Posted by: | CommentsIn the world of superior web hosting, there’s really only two main competitors as far as your operating system goes—unless you’re willing to be some kind of mad scientist, that is. Essentially, every webmaster must face the same battle during the earliest span of their career, staring at that blank server box while wondering, “Should I load this up with Windows, or will Linux get the job done?” We’re unabashedly pro-Linux, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t points for both. In fact, the uninitiated among us may quickly find themselves in over their heads without a little guidance. So with that in mind, we’d like to present our unbiased review of the major differences between a Windows-based and Linux-based server experience, starting from the ground up and arriving at the frilly stuff on top. And when putting the two head to head, there’s really no better place to start than with:
Security – Winner: Linux
In terms of raw security, it’s really quite hard to do better than any available Linux distribution. This has to do with the very way in which Linux is coded—including Unix branches of the operating system, if you were wondering. Unlike Windows, Linux has a superuser known simply as “root.” To access this level of control, a webmaster must have a direct connection to the server shell, as well as the password of the server itself. Once this link has been established, an administrator can do basically anything they’d like to the server, including the hacking and stealing of precious data. However, because this level of authority requires root access—and simply cannot be had any other way—it’s nearly impossible for an artificial-intelligence based virus to “hack” into a Linux system. The probe would first need to tunnel into the server, establishing itself as a secure connection. Next, it would need to know the master password, which theoretically could be hacked, though to little purpose. Once inside the server, the bug would still need to pass several security checks to access privileged folders, guaranteeing a much harder fight than with Windows.
Windows, it’s worth noting, features little to no administrative control, a la the “root” user. Rather, the server establishes a single account as its admin, and then ties a password to that user. However, because of the registry that lies at the heart of a Windows system, it’s relatively easy for a digital worm to wind its way into the heart of the hardware, accessing files as it pleases and relaying the found data back to another server: Or worse! All in all, Linux simply cannot be bested in terms of its superior security from outside threats.
Support – Winner: Windows
However, Windows does have the upper hand in terms of technical assistance and support. Because Windows is a proprietary operating system, it comes fully backed by a team of Microsoft specialists that will help and guide you through any unexpected errors or struggles. These lines and forums are available 24/7, 365 days a year, and can assist with any and all malfunctions. They will typically even perform some of the procedure for you, saving you the need to get your hands dirty with code.
Linux, on the other hand, historically comes with no dedicated technical assistance, save the community itself. And though the world of Linux troubleshooting is alive and well across hundreds of forums spread out across the globe, there’s simply no solid body to deal with the thousands of Linux variations and distributions that float freely in existence. Rather, it is ultimately the webmaster who must deal first-hand with technical complications, and if no quick solution is available, that webmaster’s server may be in real steep stuff.
Cost – Winner: Linux
That being said, Linux easily takes the cake in terms of raw overhead investment. Rare is a Linux distribution that costs anything, as most are available for free via the GNU public commons agreement. Furthermore, should some enterprising webmaster wish to create their own variation of the operating system, they’re fully licensed to do so, as Linux is typically available in its entirety for free redistribution. Windows, however, must be purchased with a server license, which can be quite expensive. Further, technical assistance and software come at a premium, where Linux is loaded to the gills with freeware packages optimized for the system. But as mentioned, this corner cutting in a budgetary sense also comes with a lack of dedicated problem solving support. The difference is really like buying a used car, as opposed to leasing one: Should a problem arise with the used automobile, you’re very likely up a certain creek without a means of locomotion. Should the leased vehicle fail, there’s always an helping hand nearby, ready to handle your needs.
Performance and Up-Time – Winner: Linux
Lastly, if you’re looking for the final word in performance and up-time, Linux is hands down your top pick. A Linux system absolutely never requires a reboot because of a software update, nor does it ever necessitate a restart to unclog the processes. The operating system has been designed from the ground up to create dedicated threads for each open application, activating these threads when needed and closing them when unneeded. This not only preserves processing power, but ensures that no program can “go rogue” behind the scenes, eating away at your server’s resources and potentially causing a meltdown. Windows, on the other hand, typically faults at the background level, leaving software doors open with the lights running. To keep a Windows server clean, a frequent tune-up and maintenance sweep is typically required, in addition to an occasional system reboot. Each of these requires down-time, and without a backup server on-hand to deal with the lost connectivity, you’re potentially facing irritated end-consumers. All in all, there’s simply no more efficient way to run your server for extended periods of time—Linux up-time is typically measured in years—than with a Linux distribution.
Related posts:
coLinux: can Linux and Windows co-exist?
Posted by: | CommentsThe logo for Cooperative Linux, more popularly known as coLinux, sums up the attempted approach to the platform. Placing the Windows logo and Linux penguin in opposite ends of the yin yang summarizes not just this software, but the problem it is attempting to address. With a few UNIX, Macintosh and scattered other exceptions, the hosting world is torn between Windows and Linux. This means that webmasters are similarly torn. While the strong and weak points of each are well known, the bottom line is that whichever you prefer, there is an advantage to having each of them.
Some users solve this with multiple machines: an answer doesn’t get much easier, but that’s certainly not the cheap route. A bit more common is to have a dual-boot machine. This presents its own problems, though, namely that you don’t want to have to be constantly rebooting just to switch back and forth between the two.
A marriage made in … ?
coLinux works by allowing the installation of a kernel on the host OS (usually some Windows variant, but it can be anything, so long as it sends certain types of operating data the installation needs to run). Unlike other methods of virtualization, though, Linux doesn’t quite so much run “under” it as “down and across” from it.
The term “cooperative” is meant to signify the fact that, once installed, the kernels of the Linux OS and host OS work together, communicating back and forth with each other as needed to share machine resources. The Linux kernel accomplishes this by converting the two operating systems into equal coroutines.
However, in order to work properly, especially since most hardware isn’t set to handle talking to two different masters in two different languages at once, the host OS still holds instructive sway. So those two coroutines are still slaves to it, and any Linux hardware requests get sent through it.
Does it work?
For the most part, it does. Our surveying of both different review web sites and coLinux’s own FAQ seem to indicate that it does most of what you need it to do. This is a major piece of software though: with everything that a modern computer is capable of doing, something this complex is bound to have areas of deficiencies. Here are some of the biggest problems reported:
Problem #1 – Multiple CPUs aren’t supported
The one that is probably most relevant given current technological trends. If your machine has more than one processor, then it appears coLinux can run, if you only give it access to one of the cores. This may be tricky, though, and could introduce some of its own problems. No better solution to this from coLinux’s home site is given.
Problem #2 – No X server support
coLinux does not have the ability to support an X server that requires a graphic adapter, as it does not itself contain a virtual adapter. Some workaround solutions have been suggested for this, but they are ugly as sin. For the most part they consist of running the X server in such a way that Windows takes up the slack for whatever Linux can’t do, and thus gets bridged between them. The official coLinux page has a separate section devoted to how to do this, but this just seems to be begging for trouble.
Problem #3 – No 64-bit support
This is another one that is going to become relevant real quick. coLinux is not designed to work under any 64-bit operating system. For Windows users this includes Windows 7 64-bit, Windows Vista 64-bit and Windows Server 2008 r2. Perhaps sensing the urgency to get this taken care of pronto, there is an active online discussion page about how to change this. It appears possible to suggest that we might see this compatibility in a year or two.
Problem #4 – No sound support
To play sounds of any kind would require that coLinux be able to access the sound card. We mentioned above that hardware is off-limits from coLinux, at least directly.
Is it available indirectly? Yes, it would appear. The trick to doing this revolves around finding a sound server in Windows that can receive data in the form of an audio stream from your network, and then make Linux part of that network. Sound complicated? Well, the FAQ page that explains exactly how to do this doesn’t seem any less complicated. From the looks of it, though, users have had some success in getting this to work.
What else?
Those are the most common problems. There are some scattered other ones that you are even less likely to run into, but are worth mentioning. These include:
- Does not run under Windows 98/ME - Time to upgrade.
- Bugs with XML config file – A number of them have been reported: see their FAQ for the technical details and solutions.
- Linux crashes Windows – At least in some older versions, crashing Linux crashed Windows as well.
- General instability – A little bit of this is probably to be expected.
Are there other ways?
If you like the idea that coLinux suggests but want to see if anyone else has done it better, here are a few alternate packages that some users prefer:
- Wubi – This is probably the least intimidating of the Linux-on-Windows packages. It installs Ubuntu onto Windows, but never exits Windows, and thus has the least amount of system conflict problems.
- TopologiLinux – This is a popular package that is built off coLinux. It works by creating a hard disk instance that it runs off of. Importantly, it has built-in solutions to the above mentioned X server and sound problems.
- andLinux – This is also based off the coLinux original distribution. While so far it doesn’t have the following the others have, it also seems to have addressed most of coLinux’s more problematic deficiencies, though it and TopologiLinux still don’t work on 64-bit systems.
Should I?
One thing does seem certain, and that is that there is little to lose by installing these software packages: no one reported any kind of fatal system errors. This might be a great starting point for all of the Windows users out there who want to dip their toes into some Linux waters.
Related posts:
A Comparison of the Most Popular Linux Distributions
Posted by: | CommentsIf you are considering the mighty migration from Windows to try out Linux that you hear is so popular, you might expect there to be a few types to choose from. You might not quite expect that “a few” numbers in the hundreds! Linux’s open source nature has made it a serious programmer’s playground.
With such a large number we obviously cannot go into all of them. What we will do instead is to focus on a few of the biggest ones. In doing so, it’s important to remember that for this type of operating system (ie, open-source), users are building on each other’s work. This creates a tree of variants, some of which are major branching points. The Linux Tree has three major nodes that most of the rest of the distributions branch out from. Let’s look at each of them.
Linux as an operating system is based on ideas ported over from UNIX. Different Linux distributions vary from their UNIX origins by different degrees. Of the three major Linux nodes, Slackware is the variant that aims to be the most UNIX-like. Relatedly, it attempts to emulate UNIX’s goals of simplicity.
Note that for this case, though “simplicity” refers to simplicity of design, not necessarily of use. This means that unless you have some UNIX experience or understand the general approach of command line interfaces, this may not be the best starting point for Linux beginners. If you do, you might sink right into this one.
Note also that the word “Slackware” was not a joke. Or rather, it was one: it was meant to refer to the fact that this was originally a side project not intended to go anywhere. As a result, it is the most decentralized of all of the three major branches, with only a loose “team” associated with it. This means that you’re not going to have much of any official project to go to for information, though there are still large user communities that can help you. Don’t misconstrue all of these warnings though: it is still a popular Linux variant with many loyal adherents.
There aren’t many very popular Slackware children (there’s a joke in there somewhere), but there are a few minor deviations to mention:
- Slax – This is an operating system recommended to only be run externally. It is known for being easily customizable.
- SUSE Linux – Developed in Europe and still popular there, this is a desktop-oriented operating system with a few sub-branches of its own.
Debian is also heavily UNIX based, and is designed around the philosophies of open-source, collaborative design and testing. It also aims to be a secure, stable system, and as such is the basis for more Linux variants than either of the other two major branches listed here. In fact, one of its sub-branches, Ubuntu, has about as many children variants as does all of Slackware.
Debian’s construct is about half-way between the chaotic approach of Slackware and the business model of Red Hat below. It is still open-source, but has a well organized community supporting it. When Debian was initially released, it was built around a set of core principles: the “Debian Social Contract”. From that the Debian Project was formed with its own constitution and organizational structure.
No list of sub-branches of Debian could start with anything but:
- Ubuntu – In 2007 Ubuntu ranked as the most popular Linux variant; more popular, even, than the Debian system it is derived from. It is estimated that more servers use Ubuntu than all other Linux variants combined. Is it really that good? Most users of it say yes. It is frequently described as easy to use. With 12 million computers running it, it is quickly becoming a common home for software ports of all kinds. In short, this might be the best choice of all variants for new users.
- Knoppix – While not nearly as popular, Knoppix deserves mention for being another OS designed to be externally bootable. Unlike Slax permanent installation is possible, or at least not discouraged. It itself spawned the interesting children Music/GNU Linux, a multimedia-friendly OS, and Damn Small Linux, a version designed to work well on older systems with fewer resources.
Linux is an open-source operating system on the whole, but that doesn’t mean that all of its development is non-profit. Red Hat represents the business model wing of the Linux family.
That doesn’t mean that they’ve taken this work and gone proprietary. Red Hat operates on the “professional open-source” model. This means that the code itself remains free and alterable, but the company offers paid services of various kinds related to it, such as training and support. So far this has worked for them, as this year they look to be hitting $1 billion in revenue for the first time.
The point of this isn’t to discuss economics, though, but technology, so we mention this to point out that the company is putting out a quality product that, from all we can tell, remains popular in the Linux community. Thus, Red Hat might be a good start for the user who can probably handle most of the technical side themselves, but would like a professional set of hands to fall back on when they need it.
Red Hat Linux itself is no longer supported, but has instead been split into the following two sub-branches:
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux – This is the most commercial of all of the major Linux distributions, though that doesn’t seem to have significantly impaired its quality. It is commonly sold both to customers and IT firms. There are also “Academic” versions of the software.
- Fedora – The Fedora Project is open-source, but is sponsored by Red Hat. This gives it the positive combination of being both openly developed and quickly developed. The downside is that new versions come out frequently. If you like being on the cutting edge of OS technology this is good. If you like long-term familiarity, it’s not so good.
More even than most of our articles, this is one that you are definitely going to want to get community feedback on. There is way too much about even one operating system to squeeze into an article of this size. Use this as a guide, and then ask around for opinions from people who have used them. There are enough people who have put a lot of time into their use for you to get the solid information you need to join the world of Linux.
Related posts:
A Comparison of the Most Popular Linux Distributions
Posted by: | CommentsIf you are considering the mighty migration from Windows to try out Linux that you hear is so popular, you might expect there to be a few types to choose from. You might not quite expect that “a few” numbers in the hundreds! Linux’s open source nature has made it a serious programmer’s playground.
With such a large number we obviously cannot go into all of them. What we will do instead is to focus on a few of the biggest ones. In doing so, it’s important to remember that for this type of operating system (ie, open-source), users are building on each other’s work. This creates a tree of variants, some of which are major branching points. The Linux Tree has three major nodes that most of the rest of the distributions branch out from. Let’s look at each of them.
Linux as an operating system is based on ideas ported over from UNIX. Different Linux distributions vary from their UNIX origins by different degrees. Of the three major Linux nodes, Slackware is the variant that aims to be the most UNIX-like. Relatedly, it attempts to emulate UNIX’s goals of simplicity.
Note that for this case, though “simplicity” refers to simplicity of design, not necessarily of use. This means that unless you have some UNIX experience or understand the general approach of command line interfaces, this may not be the best starting point for Linux beginners. If you do, you might sink right into this one.
Note also that the word “Slackware” was not a joke. Or rather, it was one: it was meant to refer to the fact that this was originally a side project not intended to go anywhere. As a result, it is the most decentralized of all of the three major branches, with only a loose “team” associated with it. This means that you’re not going to have much of any official project to go to for information, though there are still large user communities that can help you. Don’t misconstrue all of these warnings though: it is still a popular Linux variant with many loyal adherents.
There aren’t many very popular Slackware children (there’s a joke in there somewhere), but there are a few minor deviations to mention:
- Slax – This is an operating system recommended to only be run externally. It is known for being easily customizable.
- SUSE Linux – Developed in Europe and still popular there, this is a desktop-oriented operating system with a few sub-branches of its own.
Debian is also heavily UNIX based, and is designed around the philosophies of open-source, collaborative design and testing. It also aims to be a secure, stable system, and as such is the basis for more Linux variants than either of the other two major branches listed here. In fact, one of its sub-branches, Ubuntu, has about as many children variants as does all of Slackware.
Debian’s construct is about half-way between the chaotic approach of Slackware and the business model of Red Hat below. It is still open-source, but has a well organized community supporting it. When Debian was initially released, it was built around a set of core principles: the “Debian Social Contract”. From that the Debian Project was formed with its own constitution and organizational structure.
No list of sub-branches of Debian could start with anything but:
- Ubuntu – In 2007 Ubuntu ranked as the most popular Linux variant; more popular, even, than the Debian system it is derived from. It is estimated that more servers use Ubuntu than all other Linux variants combined. Is it really that good? Most users of it say yes. It is frequently described as easy to use. With 12 million computers running it, it is quickly becoming a common home for software ports of all kinds. In short, this might be the best choice of all variants for new users.
- Knoppix – While not nearly as popular, Knoppix deserves mention for being another OS designed to be externally bootable. Unlike Slax permanent installation is possible, or at least not discouraged. It itself spawned the interesting children Music/GNU Linux, a multimedia-friendly OS, and Damn Small Linux, a version designed to work well on older systems with fewer resources.
Linux is an open-source operating system on the whole, but that doesn’t mean that all of its development is non-profit. Red Hat represents the business model wing of the Linux family.
That doesn’t mean that they’ve taken this work and gone proprietary. Red Hat operates on the “professional open-source” model. This means that the code itself remains free and alterable, but the company offers paid services of various kinds related to it, such as training and support. So far this has worked for them, as this year they look to be hitting $1 billion in revenue for the first time.
The point of this isn’t to discuss economics, though, but technology, so we mention this to point out that the company is putting out a quality product that, from all we can tell, remains popular in the Linux community. Thus, Red Hat might be a good start for the user who can probably handle most of the technical side themselves, but would like a professional set of hands to fall back on when they need it.
Red Hat Linux itself is no longer supported, but has instead been split into the following two sub-branches:
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux – This is the most commercial of all of the major Linux distributions, though that doesn’t seem to have significantly impaired its quality. It is commonly sold both to customers and IT firms. There are also “Academic” versions of the software.
- Fedora – The Fedora Project is open-source, but is sponsored by Red Hat. This gives it the positive combination of being both openly developed and quickly developed. The downside is that new versions come out frequently. If you like being on the cutting edge of OS technology this is good. If you like long-term familiarity, it’s not so good.
More even than most of our articles, this is one that you are definitely going to want to get community feedback on. There is way too much about even one operating system to squeeze into an article of this size. Use this as a guide, and then ask around for opinions from people who have used them. There are enough people who have put a lot of time into their use for you to get the solid information you need to join the world of Linux.
Related posts:
Clean Your YUM Out!
Posted by: | CommentsYUM is a package manager and updater service for Red Hat Linux, and if you’re part of the Red Hat Network, you’re likely already using the offering to keep your applications fresh. YUM makes sure your various server components are as up to date as they can be, bringing you the latest and greatest in Red Hat without much fuss.
That being said, your YUM repositories aren’t set in stone. These are the places the service goes to when it needs to find new packages, or compare your existing software to the latest releases. These files can be edited in a number of ways, and if you haven’t messed with them before, you should likely follow the steps mentioned below to keep your Red Hat cruising along at maximum capacity.
Know How To Disable A Source
The repositories that YUM trolls can be found at the following file directory within your main server installation:
/etc/yum.repos.d
Within this directory, you’ll find a myriad of files listed as repository sources. Each of these can be edited to your hearts content, and if you want to disable a source for your YUM updater, this is the way to go. Once you’ve located a source you’d like to disable, simply change the appropriate line of code within the file to:
enable = 0
This will disable the source, but only in the sense that YUM will no longer pull information from it. The repository file is still stored on your system, which is good if you’d ever like to return to that source again. However, if you’d like to permanently disable a repository, simply delete the appropriate file from your system.
Clean Your Cache, Captain!
If you’ve been messing about with downloading and installing third party repositories, and have subsequently deleted your explorations, what you may not know is that your old files may still be junking up your repository cache. To clear the thing out, and speed up your server, commit the following lines to terminal:
yum clean packages
Be sure to type this as root, and once that’s managed, go back and enter this line, as well:
yum clean headers
This completely purges your system, removing any old packages that may have been left lingering about. The second line ensures your header repositories are purged as well. If you’re feeling particularly gung-ho, you can always enter this line to perform both functions in one fell swoop:
yum clean all