What server os can I get by with?

[johnspack]

Nice info, now I know what to do... I think. Linux itself is kind of an experiment as well, just a mostly successful one. I know how to telnet into my linux servers, so I guess I'll be doing most of my work with CLI. Pain in butt to run certain windows servers that need a bit of graphical support under linux, but apparently it can be done. I will push forward and keep learning. Seems to be worth it...

 

[Aquinus]

Nice info, now I know what to do... I think. Linux itself is kind of an experiment as well, just a mostly successful one. I know how to telnet into my linux servers, so I guess I'll be doing most of my work with CLI. Pain in butt to run certain windows servers that need a bit of graphical support under linux, but apparently it can be done. I will push forward and keep learning. Seems to be worth it...

Us in the Linux community tend to use SSH for this kind of thing. Telnet is what I use if I want to see if a port is open and behaving as it should (like a SMTP server.) Most linux server installations don't have a GUI. I've managed just about every Linux box I've touched through the CLI and SSH. I also wouldn't call Linux for servers an experiment because that's one of Linux' biggest uses. If anything the desktop experience is a little more green than anything else. Ubuntu tends to be my go-to distro for both desktop and server. Rarely I will use plain Debian but, it tends to be more out of date than Ubuntu.

 

[johnspack]

Yeah, ssh for linux. Haven't used telnet protocol. Was just thinking about it because you can use a telnet client to do ssh... I've been playing with Centos, but there are just so many missing dependencies and you have to do a lot of compiling to install anything. I need a server that can just do what I need it to do, not build or rpm --rebuild every dam dependency before I can use an app. Is Rhel ent the same way? I think even Fedora is more complete. More testing to do, arg....

 

[Solaris17]

You could see if ubuntu or debian fits you better. Worst case scenario you can call up and pay for canonical support. I reccomend staying with LTS builds though.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You can however run Windows Server 2012R2 unactivated using a KMS key from Microsoft (Google "Microsoft KMS Key"), and it will allow operation and OS security updates. You will be somewhat limited on other product updates, and if your business faces a Microsoft audit, will be fined for not having a license or any CAL's for the environment you're in.

For a business/commercial entity, that is just not an option or worth the risk. Of course, a Microsoft audit requires due process, EULA or not.

EDIT; @johnspack I just looked it up to refresh the memory, Windows Server 2012 is being supported until 2023 when Microsoft EOL's it. That's a good amount of time for deployment given the reasonable cost at this time. Amazon currently has it for under $400; https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Server-2012-Essentials/dp/B00GAIBC0I
That version has a 25 user limit on up to 50 systems, no CAL's required.

 

[Kursah]

Yep and that alone makes it worth it to stay legit. Definitely not worth failing an audit over and MS has really stepped up this past year on that front in this area.

But to test how it works in an environment for I believe 180-days, it would be fine irrc. Could be 90 though.

I use my 2012R2 Data center key on my single core + VMs for my home lab that I obtained during college. Between using it to study for my MCSA and just hosting stuff for my wife and kids it's been a very good experience.

 

[johnspack]

But what if it is only to be used as a web server, no users. Only a server admin running it remotely. What good is 25 seats to me? And Canonical support, I didn't know that existed. Something else I need to go research now. And yes, it must be fully legit, as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it. So no trials, demos... has to be a full fledged server os for net applications. I just have to figure out what that will be, must be cheap, reliable, and do what is needed. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect, or a cheap one.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But what if it is only to be used as a web server, no users. Only a server admin running it remotely. What good is 25 seats to me? And Canonical support, I didn't know that existed. Something else I need to go research now. And yes, it must be fully legit, as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it. So no trials, demos... has to be a full fledged server os for net applications. I just have to figure out what that will be, must be cheap, reliable, and do what is needed. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect, or a cheap one.

The number of users was only a reference. It will run just fine as an actual web server. Part of it's design. But if Linux appeals to you, just know that it will be a good idea to sign up for a support service of some kind as there is a learning curve. But Ubuntu Server is an excellent choice with a boat-load of community and business support.

 

[Aquinus]

But Ubuntu Server is an excellent choice with a boat-load of community and business support.

Most of the boxes I've had to deal with on the cloud typically run Ubuntu Server. I have Ubuntu Server on my 3820 which is crunching as well, then there is Ubuntu running on my desktop. The reality is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the server variant of Ubuntu and a minimal installation. The only real difference is which packages are installed at installation. Server and minimum installs put just the barebones on. You can install all the same packages as the desktop version but, it doesn't even ship with a GUI (because it's a waste of memory if it's not used.)

But what if it is only to be used as a web server, no users. Only a server admin running it remotely. What good is 25 seats to me? And Canonical support, I didn't know that existed. Something else I need to go research now. And yes, it must be fully legit, as commercial enterprises will eventually be done on it. So no trials, demos... has to be a full fledged server os for net applications. I just have to figure out what that will be, must be cheap, reliable, and do what is needed. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be any easy prospect, or a cheap one.

I suspect that you don't need canonical support unless you go really far down the rabit hole, start a business, and become profitable where slowly resolving issues could cost you a lot of money. With that said, i highly suggest giving Ubuntu Server a whack.

 

[johnspack]

Yeah, I think I'll keep learning Ubuntu server. If Rhel is anything like Centos, I'd rather not deal with that pain. Anything Debian based seems easy to deal with. I just have to finish mastering wine so I can run any windows services I need, and do that without any gui assistance. Starting to read stuff that tells you exactly how to do that. And that rabbit hole... I'm waaaay in!

 

[Solaris17]

Yeah, I think I'll keep learning Ubuntu server. If Rhel is anything like Centos, I'd rather not deal with that pain. Anything Debian based seems easy to deal with. I just have to finish mastering wine so I can run any windows services I need, and do that without any gui assistance. Starting to read stuff that tells you exactly how to do that. And that rabbit hole... I'm waaaay in!

Thats spirited beginner. you gotta run headless BSD servers not shower for a week and drink straight coffee out of a mug you never wash. then ill take you out for a beer. We gotta get you to

"does my beard just itch or are there animals living in it?"

 

[johnspack]

Oh I just saw the most awesome thing.... install w3m on ubuntu server, and actually browsed tpu from the command line! It works! Now I don't question what linux can do.....

 

[notb]

Oh I just saw the most awesome thing.... install w3m on ubuntu server, and actually browsed tpu from the command line! It works! Now I don't question what linux can do.....

Well... what exactly is so great about it?
I've used text-based web browsers in the past a lot - mostly for web crawling (back when web pages used to be static and it made sense...). But there is really nothing special about it.
You can find a text-based browser for any platform.

So the question is: why do we have good text-based browsers for Linux and not so many for Windows? The explanation is pretty simple, but almost 25 years old.

The original browser - WorldWideWeb, released in 1991 (before the first Linux kernel!) - was graphical. However, it only worked on NeXT. The second one (and first cross-platform) - Line Mode Browser - was indeed text-based, because... guys at CERN didn't know how to write a graphical one for other platforms.
In 1992 Lynx was released on the other side of Atlantic and it became the default Linux browser (and still is included in most distributions).
But everything changed in 1993. A mainstream, user-friendly browser appeared: Mosaic. It was a hit on Windows and Mac OS, which already had decent GUIs.
In 1994 we got Netscape Navigator and in 1995: Internet Explorer. As a result text-based browsers on these platforms became pretty much extinct... before www actually became a thing for most humans.
And while Mosaic and NN also worked on Linux, many Linux users didn't use a GUI, so text-based browsers survived and new ones were developed (like w3m).
Because of low / no demand, w3m was never ported to Windows in a civilized way (you need Cygwin) and nothing similar was written for Windows (at least not for mainstream use).

 

[johnspack]

Well, I have to return to this.. finally convinced the owner to upgrade. Looking at win10 enterprise now. Think we'll be installing it shortly. Now I see there is e3 and e5 versions of it, what the hell?
I'll probably tell him to go with e3. I can control the updates fully in enterprise right?

 

[stinger608]

I can control the updates fully in enterprise right?

Yep, you can

 

[R-T-B]

Yep, you can

As someone who uses enterprise, I've yet to see any evidence updates can be controlled.

I know what they said. I also know I have never really had that option.

 

[johnspack]

Well crap, that sucks. I now have to step up my linux learning. Windows is just such shit. Buying a usb dac for my main box so I don't have to host linux vms on windows for the dam sound
anymore. Linux has far better network support, is far more robust, gets security updates the day they come out, not once a month.... yep, I hate windows.

 

[lexluthermiester]

As someone who uses enterprise, I've yet to see any evidence updates can be controlled.

I'm also someone who uses a version of Win10 Enterprise. The LTSB version most definately allows full control of updates. If nothing else, you can disable the BITS & Update services except when you want to update, a technique that applies to all versions of 10.

 

[R-T-B]

The LTSB version most definately allows full control of updates.

Wha?

Maybe I need to take a second look... currently running bog standard enterprise due to a work requirement.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Maybe I need to take a second look... currently running bog standard enterprise due to a work requirement.

Do take a look at it. I'm currently running it as a test platform for desktop use. Totally not what MS intended it for, but the constant changes to the UI and feature-set of the standard 10 irritate the living crap out of me. That's not even mentioning that the Windows Store, Apps & even Edge are not present and Cortana is disabled by default(at least on the iso I'm using).

 

[johnspack]

I'll have to make sure he gets the right one then. He is going to install enterprise on it, so hope it doesn't annoy me too much to use....

 

[SamirD]

If the windows updates are what's causing the problems. Shut them off (or don't) and install reboot restore or deep freeze to make the system solid and consistant. You won't have all the security updates, but you can just reboot and shake the bugs out. Besides, I almost wonder what's causing more problems these days--the updates or the bugs themselves.

 

[lexluthermiester]

the updates or the bugs themselves.

My vote is both about equally.