what flavour of linux do you use ?

Conor_3

fwor wrote: »

Interesting - what bit did they break as far as you were concerned?

Everything else - including Samba and network shares from Windows based PCs - works fine.

Well it's that which is broken but with the Ubuntu box as a client on a Windows network. They removed authentication in gvfs so basically you can't browse network shares on a Windows PC in Nautilus without some right royal fannying around. This also means adding a shared printer that's on a Windows PC isn't as straightforward as it used to be. In 7.10, you could just go to Windows Network, Workgroup, Computer, click on the computer and it'd ask for user/pass if needed then show the shares. Now it just hangs.

richardlionheart

we use Linux to host our clan servers ( we share the cost of a dedicated server )
that way we can run voice coms and several other clans servers as well .
ie, up to the servers physical limits. ( example a 3 gig dual on 10 meg unlimited pipe with max game server settings ,should be able to host around 100 players easily say 5 x 20 player or 4 x 25 or any combination )
or if running indivdual servers at reduced rate settings can squeeze another 50 players

it was a learning curve i can tell you ! !
at the beginning we hosted from a well known UK game server host 2 X 20 player servers,
at around £25 per month. plus monthly stats at extra cost.
but as well as being expensive the FTP only allowed us to load
new maps configs but not change the game mods
without having to email it to them to do for us. ( a real pain )

so we decided we can do this our selves how hard can it be !
we got our first dedicated box hosted at a data center in London. in 2006.
had debian 4.0 and because we went through a game server dedicated rental
company , the server came with FTP set up a control panel , and KVMoverIP and
we soon uploaded our games and everything working to a T ..when disaster struck !
the third party who we went through went bust ! last october.

so then we decided to use a well known company fasthosts ,
unfortunately it had a version of centOS ( more of a web host server )
and none of us could get the darn game servers up and away
the ftp we figured out , but not being use to the os was a pain.
so we changed OS to windows 2003 at cost of £10 per month
extra over linux since then fasthost have several other versions of linux to choose
but at the time choice was Windows 2003 or Cent
we begged them to put debian on.

.so we put up with windows for a time ,now any game server worth its salt is either Linux
or Unix ( as most linux based games should run under that )
apart from the odd strange game that is windows only
( Vietnam for example )
but we find as well as being more stable and less likely to crash
the server runs faster so game play is very smooth and latencey
not an issue.

luckily we found a dedicated server now in Amsterdam,
thats runs under suse 10 and on a 100 meg connection.

Only problem now is the euro/pound as it was cheaper last year
but as other clans chip in we keep above the costs.
servers for us have to be in Europe so our pings are lower.
we did try a New York based server ( free for 24 hours )
pinged around 100 which is liveable but i prefer around 20/25

however more and more USA based game servers/ web hosts have servers in the UK data centers and charge dollars so that is very attractive now.
we just cannot be ars@ed to keep upsticks and moving.

by the way here is german server running our mod !


if anyone knows how to set up an easy start/stop so others can login via a web link
and stop/start there clan server without the need to ask one of us to do it.
as sometimes they put a new map or a map cycle script with an error in it , and their server
will stall , rcon will be unable to start it so they have to email one of us.
now this type of thing we had before but it seems to be custom made programs.
or better a type of restart script if the server hangs for x seconds may be better.



Regards
Rich

David_Forrest

This thread is actually becoming quite interesting as it shows everyones views coming together.... To the person who said that linux distros aren't ready for mainstream joe bloggs users, its a perfectly valid point, but I'm sure now that when we look around that we can find plenty of systems being produced now adays that have linux o/s installed on them straight from factory - Most commonly Ubuntu

Obviously linux, is a far more expendable O/S okay so i'l admit that some things may have to be down in depth and on the command line, but normal everyday tasks liek the internet and messaging can all be down very simply on any linux distro, then again - the usability and the thoughts of windows being so much easier to use obviously comes first in any customers eyes.

I'll tell you now, from what I've learnt in my job at the moment - ever server we distribute runs on either centOS or Ubuntu server editions. We no longer ditribute and very rarely are connected with wondows servers. Just because of the various factors that are involved.

The technical stats (I'm sure someone will correct my facts if they are wrong)

Windows (any edition) is a memory hog, hence why now adays we are starting to need more and more powerful machines to run jus the operating system
Then when you look at the figures and put windows up against ubuntu, which uses very little memory at all to run the whole system, you can see why many people just prefer it.

Someone I know just got one the Acer Aspire One netbooks, now this came pre-installed with fedora (a linux distro) with a very user friendly skin applied onto the desktop so that everything was really easy to find, and everything was kept so simple. Now after a couple of commands and playing about with it, the person managed to get it back to the back end of the system, where they could install any programs they wanted. Now with the system back to the real true operating system, the user could now have the full power of the machine. Now there were 2 models released, one with linux, and the other with windows xp. Now here is the breaking figures. The linux machine would boot up and be fully ready to use in 10 seconds, while the windows xp machine would take about 45 seconds to a minute to get all the services started.

I don't know if anyone agrees with the views, I hold, I just hope some people understand them, thats all I'm here to do - hand out help and information :-)

savemoney

Do they do a strawberry flavour

cowbutt

I started with Slackware 2.2.0 in 1995, switched to Red Hat 2.1 about six months later, and stuck with Red Hat until the RHEL/Fedora split. I now use CentOS on machines at work, and Fedora at home (which gives me something of a preview on what's coming up in future releases of RHEL/CentOS).

Conor_3

David_Forrest wrote: »

Windows (any edition) is a memory hog, hence why now adays we are starting to need more and more powerful machines to run jus the operating system
Then when you look at the figures and put windows up against ubuntu, which uses very little memory at all to run the whole system, you can see why many people just prefer it.

ABSOLUTE LIES.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;79749
Windows 3.1 will run with as little as 1MB of RAM. It needs 6.5MB of hard drive space. For that 1MB RAM and 6.5MB of hard drive space you get a full GUI. Even Damn Small Linux can't beat that.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/182751
Windows 98SE will run with as little as 16MB of RAM. 32 is the sweet point. For that 16MB you get a full GUI. It needs 255MB hard drive space.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304297
Windows 2000 will run with 32MB although 256MB is the sweet spot. For that 32MB, you get a full GUI. It needs 650MB hard drive space.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865
Windows XP will run with 64MB although the sweet spot used to be 512MB. For that 64MB, you get a full GUI. It needs 1.5GB hard drive space to install.

From the Ubuntu website:
System Requirements

Ubuntu is available for PC, 64-Bit PC and Intel based Mac architectures. At least 256 MB of RAM is required to run the alternate install CD (384MB of RAM is required to use the live CD based installer). Install requires at least 4 GB of disk space.



Nearly all Linux distros running KDE or Gnome need 256MB minimum and even DSL wants 64MB if you want any kind of graphical interface. So tell me, how is 256MB RAM less than 128MB and how is 4GB less than 2GB?

If you're going to produce facts and figures Mr. Forrest, at least check them first. Sorry but I'm getting sick of all the Windows bashing especially when 99.9999% of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

David_Forrest

To really be frankly honest I did actually say that my facts were probably not correct, and that someone, no doubt, would come and correct them. But lets be serious here, at no point was I "Bashing Windows", on all 6 computers I have in the house I run windows on each one of them all with different hardware and operating systems - so I have to say me going out and bashing windows is a bit of an over-statement.

The points that I am trying to prove here is that, you can install a linux distro on a very minamalistic system, and still get all the power out of it!! Unlike in windows where you have slow loading times and require a specific specification to do specific tasks and display specific visuals etc.

You have to understand, I have to laugh off the accusations of windows bashing ha!

Marty_J

Conor wrote: »

ABSOLUTE LIES

I think what you probably meant to say was "I disagree with your post".

ETA: It's pretty meaningless to compare the requirements for a current distro of Linux with those for Windows 98 or 3.1.

If you want to make a valid comparison, you really need to compare them to Vista. If a Linux distro requires less RAM than a contemporary edition of Windows, then it's hardly a lie to say that Windows is a resource hog.

David_Forrest

Ah great when there is no reply.... :P


*Tumbleweed*

Conor_3

Marty_J wrote: »

If you want to make a valid comparison, you really need to compare them to Vista. If a Linux distro requires less RAM than a contemporary edition of Windows, then it's hardly a lie to say that Windows is a resource hog.

Why not XP? Is it because it completely destroys your argument?