Newb-Friendly Linux Flavor For LAMP Server? 382
First time accepted submitter bhcompy writes "I need to setup a system to serve 2500 users and I've been looking at a LAMP setup. This is not commercial, more of a personal side project for some friends. I've no experience configuring or administering a Linux server having worked with MS and PICK based solutions my whole life, so I'm looking for something that will be relatively straightforward to implement and not a chore to manage and preferably not completely CLI. I will be serving a forum(phpBB 3 suits my needs and seems adequate) and a variety of PHP driven content with a MySQL backend. Requirements are PHP 5.3.0+ and MySQL 5+. Suggestions?"
SME server (Score:3, Funny)
I haven't verified that it has all the versions that you want, but I've used SME server on and off over the years for such things. It's quite newb friendly, and not completely command line. There are quite a few other options as well.
Wow (Score:2, Offtopic)
Try Virtualmin (Score:2)
I suggest Virtualmin on top of Ubuntu. Its easy to configure and setup and maintain.
http://www.virtualmin.com
Fedora or RHEL/CentOS (Score:2)
There's a nice article here on setting up the LAMP stack on Fedora (or its relatives, Red Hat Enterprise Linux and CentOS):
http://fedorasolved.org/server-solutions/lamp-stack [fedorasolved.org]
Re: (Score:2)
On any modern Linux, think LAMP is going to be pretty much part of the install process anyway... the part that might fru
Sorry, but go with what you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Making stupid mistakes in front of an audience of 2500 users would be embarrassing no matter how trivial the subject matter of the site is. You are better off making the stupid newbie mistakes where only you can see them. Having test and production environments only go so far if there is nobody in the project that really knows what you are testing for - if you don't know what you are doing your stupid stuff will go live.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking in those lines too. Why go for Linux when you have experience with Windows? And why doing your first-ever Linux deployment for a 2,500 user set-up?
The answer for the first is probably either cost or philosophy. But still I'd start much smaller when talking about a totally unknown system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can go with what you know but also leave yourself room to do a drop in replacement of a Linux stack when needed. The only reason I can see in not using what you know is excessive cost. If you cannot recoup those costs and cannot afford them then you can use a Linux solution. I would however point to a corporate Linux solution such as RHEL and only use what they recommend.
Re: (Score:2)
CentOS (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Be very careful on how you expose Webmin though. It wields a lot of power - both for you and an attacker who discovers the open port and a weak password (or other exploit). Personally, if I were to use it at all, I'd only expose it on localhost, and require using SSH port forwarding to access it.
CentOS 6 is a good recommendation though if you have background with Red Hat, or want to pursue a future support career with a RHEL based environment. If not, Ubuntu is equally well supported.
Go mainstream: Ubuntu or RHEL (Score:5, Informative)
I'd suggest that you go with one of the mainstream/common Linux server distros: either RHEL (for which you can use CentOS, which is essentially the same, minus the RedHat-copyrighted bits) or Ubuntu Server.
Either of these can be configured to use a GUI. I'd actually pick RHEL/CentOS over Ubuntu, and during the install (which is graphical), you can select to install a web+database server along with a Desktop (GUI). The installation is fairly straightforward; the most complex part is arguably the partitioning, although you can use the guided partitioner to just use all free space on the disk. Partitioning isn't something that's linux-centric, although the partition scheme for Linux is perhaps a bit more complex than what'd you would expect coming from a Windows world (dedicated swap device, LVM to virtualize the partitions, etc..). If you use the guided "do it for me" option, you can avoid getting your hands wet with this complexity.
The primary reason I'd suggest going mainstream is that the support will be there. If you choose some OS that no one really uses, you'll be hard-pressed to find distro-centric documentation for it. If you go with Ubuntu or RedHat, you can use Google to get through any obstacles you may find. There are plenty of tutorials available when you google for a simple [do this task] on [this distribution]. For example:
http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&ix=c1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=install+phpbb+on+rhel [google.com]
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=install+phpbb+on+ubuntu+server [google.com]
While you could probably use this documentation to complete a task on another distro, it's helpful to have a tutorial for the specific OS you're using; all the commands will be the same, and any dependency problems, etc... will all be accounted for.
Additionally, should you decide that you want to learn more and play around, having something mainstream installed means that your learning experience will be directly relevant to anything you want to do down the line.
As an alternative, you could go with a pre-built phpBB appliance. http://www.turnkeylinux.org/phpbb [turnkeylinux.org] is a single ISO or VDK that is built on Ubuntu Server and comes pre-configured with phpBB (they have many other applications available as well - highly recommended!). It'll ask you a few questions during the install, and once complete, you'll boot up into a fully-functional Linux server with phpBB already running.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Ubuntu Server doesn't come with a GUI, so I would suggest normal desktop Ubuntu and then download the servers from the Software Center that you need. Also, go with LTS.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Ubuntu Server doesn't come with a GUI
Yes it does. http://www.google.com/#q=ubuntu+server+gui [google.com] Hell, when I started typing "Ubuntu Server" the suggestion on google was GUI... And you will want the server kernel, not the desktop kernel with a few thousand threads going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by default Ubuntu server doesn't have GUI, but you can install one if you want to.
Also, what is the difference between a server and a desktop kernel (guess mainly scheduling and paging strategies), and how significant is it? (I have not much experience running Linux servers.)
Re: (Score:2)
Side project for some friends, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Debian (Score:3)
www.debian.org
The essential, and without any brown lipstick smeared all over.
CentOS or Debian(Ubuntu) (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Disable root login via SSH as soon as possible.
Already done on Ubuntu. There is no "root" account on Debian based systems unless you go to some trouble to make one.
But good pointer on fail2ban. Good thing to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Debian definitely has a root account, and the last time I checked, so did Ubuntu. Ubuntu *does* want you to do everything through sudo, which to me seems LESS secure, but they do have a root account. All you need to do to "activate" it is to assign it a password. (Well, this was back around hoary hedgehog or whatever it was called.)
I used Ubuntu for awhile, but found it gave me no advantage that I was using over Debian. And I ended up going back to Debian over package availability. (Not a concern for m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any safe than having a normal user be able to "su" anyway?
How is it any safer than having root access with only certificates and no keyboard-interactive?
Disabling SSH root acess is as stupid as blocking ICMP for "security". Man, all those ICMP-blocking fags are in for a surprise with IPv6...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so much that it is "safer", per se. Forcing users to login as themselves and then use sudo allows you to restrict access to groups based on roles, as well as leaving an audit trail that allows for greater accountability. If everyone can go all willie-nilly around acting as root, then you're screwed when no one owns up to fucking something up. Of course, this also means needing to disable 'sudo su' for all but the lead admin or a couple of other seniors for the policy to be really enforced. However
Re: (Score:2)
Disable root login via SSH as soon as possible
Serious question: Why is this routine advice demanded of all noob linux admins? If my root password is geka#r#t-epu6ramAthap_eke (that's not my password) people can feel free to brute force away. Perhaps in 300 trillion years, they might have a 50/50 shot at breaking it, but I won't lose sleep over that. Besides, there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to log in as root. Off the top of my head, you can't escalate to root permissions using SCP, so right there's a fine reason to have a remote account with
Re: (Score:2)
Disable root login via SSH as soon as possible
Serious question: Why is this routine advice demanded of all noob linux admins? If my root password is geka#r#t-epu6ramAthap_eke (that's not my password) people can feel free to brute force away. Perhaps in 300 trillion years, they might have a 50/50 shot at breaking it, but I won't lose sleep over that. Besides, there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to log in as root. Off the top of my head, you can't escalate to root permissions using SCP, so right there's a fine reason to have a remote account with root permissions enabled. Running certain remote backup jobs often requires root permissions. I realize that these concerns have workarounds, but why turn a 1-step process of transferring a file into a 6 step process for no real gain in security?
Because there is also a gain in n00b-insurance.
If you are operating as root, it is a lot easier to screw up your entire system when you do something wrong. If you are operating where you have to run sudo, this keeps you from running commands you don't need root for as root. How many times are you changing directories, poking around in world or group-readable files, or otherwise doing things you don't need root for in the middle of a few commands you actually do need root for?
A classic example would be rem
Re: (Score:2)
Learn the CLI (Score:4, Insightful)
A simple Ubuntu or Debian 5 installation will fill the bill nicely. Webmin will take some of the sting out of having to learn the CLI. However any true IT professional should learn and use the CLI (Even newer MS servers can not be installed sans GUI). Once learned, it is quicker, simpler, more powerful way to do things than any other method I know.
Don't let the unfriendly reputation of NIX scare you away. I did 16 years ago when I started our ISP. Went entirely Windows NT servers. What a mistake! These things were constantly failing for various reasons. I began learning Linux and slowly replacing the failed servers with Linux systems and they just didn't fail unless some hardware failed (not nearly as frequent).
Life is much easer now and I spend very little time on server maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this. If you are set on wanting the L in LAMP, you are doing yourself a disservice by not learning a bit of bash. Some config file changes are easier to do in a web interface or similar, but if you use a CLI for most of your admining, it is a lot easier on the whole to track what you did wrong, what you changed on the test server (please make a test server - a VM will probably do) since last update of your production server.
A CLI is also useful if you are AFK since most smartphones can run an SSH clie
Re: (Score:2)
> Debian 5 is outdated. Debian 6 ("Squeeze") is the new Stable.
If only. It's often difficult if not impossible to run production services on it without reaching out to "testing" or "development" repositories which are poorly managed and integrated, discard old packages from their repositories so there is no reference, and change package names without warning. Coupled with the tendency of updates to be applied on top of locally edited configurations written by admins who ignore package management, and the
2500 users? Not really (Score:2)
I thought you meant you wanted 2500 users on the Linux system itself. That's a fairly big /etc/passwd file, and if they all log in at once then I suspect even a high-end system will crawl a bit.
What you really want is a system that can run a forum that can support 2500 users, but you don't say how many simultaneously, or anything else useful. For 2500 simultaneous users, all posting and reading, you might need more than one box...
So, proper requirements spec plzkthx.
Maybe Amahi? (Score:2)
I am nearly equally Linux-ignorant, I set up Amahi as a "home cloud" (googling for that is what led me to it). It runs on Fedora by default. It's been mostly easy to install and maintain, and I even managed to install Trac on my own with not too much pain (given that I already have installed Trac on MacOS and Solaris).
phpBB is one of their apps that is in beta, where I suspect it will be for a while (it's volunteer-mostly), but the apps so far are click-and-go. I administer the box with webmin, which in
Go hosted? (Score:2)
A forum and some custom LAMP pages ... soooo why not focus on that and leave the server/hosting/etc to someone else? There are a lot of LAMP hosting providers out there that you could use for a few $$ per month.. Go with a company that can give you SSH access so you can get familiar with some CLI management (or concurrently attempting to run the same stuff on a virtualbox linux setup) and perhaps down the road once your more comfortable with the LAMP config, then migrate the site to your own server.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with the hosted part. If you really want to roll your own, I'd personally go nginx and php5-fpm with mysql backend rather than apache. Its much more likely to perform well with a 2500 user phpbb than apache.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Conflicting goals? (Score:5, Insightful)
not a chore to manage and preferably not completely CLI.
Aren't these inherently directly conflicting goals?
Easy to manage, is you change one little thing in your puppet config and puppet magically makes it happen, instead of having to babysit everything.
Easy to manage is someone tells you "make /etc/apache2/apache2.conf look exactly like this" instead of "click on the 2nd icon from the right that looks like two mating centipedes, then look randomly about the screen until you find the icon that looks like a discarded kleenex, oh you're seeing an icon that looks like a black hole, well, then click two pages back" etc for about ten minutes.
An analogy is "teach me physics, without any of that tedious math stuff".
Re: (Score:2)
After a while, I installed Debian 4 (right after it came out) one of my systems, looked around for GUI configurators, saw none, and so it seemed that t
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't these inherently directly conflicting goals?
Easy to manage, is you change one little thing in your puppet config and puppet magically makes it happen, instead of having to babysit everything.
Easy to manage is someone tells you "make /etc/apache2/apache2.conf look exactly like this" instead of "click on the 2nd icon from the right that looks like two mating centipedes, then look randomly about the screen until you find the icon that looks like a discarded kleenex, oh you're seeing an icon that looks like a black hole, well, then click two pages back" etc for about ten minutes.
No, they are not conflicting goals.
How do I put this gently... there is... *ahem* plenty of room to add value to open source projects. If you get my drift. Take Visual SVN Server for example. They didn't remove svnadmin, and you don't even need to know apache is there for the most part.
Also, I can't think of any case where Puppet makes managing a single instance of something easier. At best it is as difficult as doing the underlying work yourself. It solves a different problem, of managing looooooooo
Why not WAMP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even thought about a WAMP setup? A poorly admined Linux box is worse than a well managed Windows one. - from a *nix sysadmin
I've come across some WAMP setups, and in my experience, the AMP part is harder to maintain on Windows than on Linux... and, doesn't seem to run as well under load though part of that may be the poor administration of the AMP stack in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are smart enough to do Windows right, you don't need to use it as some sort of delusional crutch.
A poorly managed Windows box is far more dangerous than a poorly managed Linux one and that's exactly what you will get if you try to tell people that they can use Windows if they want to be lazy. They will be lazy and disaster will ensue.
I don't think I've seen anyone mention yet that the P in LAMP/WAMP is the most problematic thing here. It's not something to be trifled with. The new user needs to under
How about a web-hotel (Score:4, Insightful)
Get someone else to do it (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't understand Linux and won't/can't want to take the time to learn it properly, then it would make more sense to get a hosting account from a reputable web hoster. Or if you insist on running the machine yourself, hire someone to do the initial setup for you.
In todays environment, you need to understand a great deal about many OS level things, most of which revolve around security. Firewalls, mail configurations, etc. Not setting these things up correctly can have bad consequences. For example
Security Security Security (Score:2)
Make sure your installations are up-to-date and *easy* to upgrade, and follow any program-specific "security" FAQs, instructions, manual chapters, etc...
A LAMP System with common server applications and without careful configuration is basically begging to be cracked. Following the basic instructions for tightening it down (limiting system access of www-data user, limiting database permissions of the database user your web applications are accessing the database as, making sure strong input validation is u
Re: (Score:2)
And move SSH to a non-standard port, assuming you're running it. You'll cut SSH attacks in half.
Another approach (Score:5, Informative)
I am surprised that no one has mentioned XAMPP or Portable XAMPP yet.
I used Portable XAMPP under WinXP as a development environment for several years. It comes with a couple of GUI management tools and has an active community behind it. Advantages: you get a LAMP-like setup on a removable drive running under an OS you are already comfortable with. If things go totally weird, you can replace the XAMPP drive with one loaded with an earlier backup and be confident that none of the weirdness has been left in your system. I found that was a very comforting thought when I was going through the newbie jitters phase.
XAMPP is probably powerful enough to handle 2,500 users doing typical Internet stuff (avoiding serving out hundreds of full length movies, etc). So it might be suitable for your production environment as well as development: install it on a fast fixed HD using Ubuntu Server as the OS and you will have a bullet proof operation that is easy to manage and develop for. XAMPP is plain vanilla and seems to play well with any of the Linux servers.
Here is a link [portableapps.com] to one source of XAMPP goodness. Anyone who is still using Windows should think about exploring the PortableApps site, too. There are some FOSS gems there.
Sounds like you are hosting a website. (Score:2)
Ubuntu server is very good, but you really will have to deep-dive into Apache and the mail server of your choice which adds about 200% over just learning Linux. In your case, though, it sounds more like you are setting up to serve a few PHP apps. If that is the case, I'd recommend setting up on a Cpanel based hosting service (Cpanel runs on CentOS and has become a de-facto standard for serving PHP apps like PHPBB 3). If you need a dedicated server, you can find places where you can get a Cpanel server for
Ubuntu + Zend Community Edition (Score:2)
As other posters have pointed out -- Ubuntu is your best bet for a user friendly Linux distro, especially if you plan on using a GUI for administration. /user/local/zend) with everything you need pre-configured and packed up with an installer. It even includes a service monitor for easy access to log files.
For the LAMP stack, Zend Server is your best bet, it's a free, self contained environment (installs to
Is this going to be on the public Internet? (Score:2)
If this is going to be on the public Internet, I'd question the wisdom of managing it yourself when you've admitted it's not one of your core strengths. Instead, I'd set up a cheap & cheerful shared hosting account - it'll be locked down thoroughly, it'll have a pretty sophisticated set of management tools and if you install phpBB through the management tool there's every chance any security issues will be dealt with by your hosting company. Considering the security history of most PHP forums (dire), ma
Re: (Score:2)
If this is going to be on the public Internet, I'd question the wisdom of managing it yourself when you've admitted it's not one of your core strengths. Instead, I'd set up a cheap & cheerful shared hosting account.
Agreed. Shared hosting is about $5 to $10 a month now. Dreamhost and Hostgator are quite capable of hosting a forum system of 2500 users on a low end account. They handle server administration, backups, and replacement of the hardware when it breaks. And, importantly, they have a lot more bandwidth to the Internet than you do.
There are reasons to run your own server, but none of them apply to your case. You're not developing new code. You're not running persistent processes like a game server or a virtua
Re: (Score:2)
Go hosted (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
2500 users (Score:2)
2500 users doesn't say much. 2500 people that will log into a forum a few times a week or 2500 people that'll upload and download eachothers' entire lives in multimedia?
Unease with CLI and LAMP don't mix (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if you are uneasy with a CLI, you need to ask yourself whether you can actually do this. Unease with CLI is typically due to lack of understanding how things actually work. In that case you should stay in the MS world, where people are (mostly) protected from making severe mistakes but are seriously limited in what they can actually do.
If you are trying to break out of the MS-world corset, then do not fear the CLI, learn to use it instead. It is the only way to be free of those restrictions, as GUIs are not and cannot be powerful interfaces due to fundamental limitations. Remember, the CLI gives you the power to command (and shoot yourself in the foot), while the GUI just interfaces you, allowing you to do just what the GUI designer chose to allow you to do. Both terms are surprisingly self-explanatory.
People who tell you that CLIs are hard are wrong (Score:2)
not a chore to manage and preferably not completely CLI
In my experience, you spend more time & headaches trying to avoid CLIs and config files than you would need to spend just learning how to use those tools.
Debian does a *really* good job of making it easy to work with the CLI and config files. Don't fight that; just learn it. The knowledge is very reusable, and it remains useful for years (even decades?) rather than months.
Host somewhere else while learning LAMP admn (Score:2)
Even if it's just for fun that's a heck of a lot of users to let down if you run into trouble. I'd be concerned that even if you get it set up and running, some day it will go down and it'll take several days to figure to while the community languishes. I'd host somewhere else until you are really comfortable and familiar with LAMP administration.
All that you need is ... (Score:2)
(1) The latest Ubuntu LTS
(2) Webmin and Virtualmin.
That's It! Nuff said.
Bitnami or Turnkeylinux (Score:2)
Get an ISO, AMI, or VM image complete with LAMP already configured. Hell, they even have configurations that include apps already configured like trac, mediawiki or redmine. You'll have full control including root, so no worries about lock-in.
I'd just test one of these out, get your deployment script tested, then roll out the AMI on Amazon EC2 (then apply your deploy script)... where you can scale up the capabilities as needed.
Ultimately, cost/capability will determine whether you host locally, remote or
2600 users is not a "newb" project (Score:2)
This is not something to do as a "newb", as you describe it. Such a large project requires attention to mirroring, high availability, backup, load handling, security, and API's for accessing the data that are beyond a weekend "just set it up and run" project. It's a good time to contact your local DBA's for their guidance, and their preferences, and let them help you save time addressing the concerns they will raise later, and which may not be on the original plan.
Stability for a server class project would
Why use Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
I know I'll get booed for this, but why use Linux at all? Apache, PHP and MySQL are all available for Windows, and run on any version. I use a Linux distro for my firewalls, but Windows for everything else, including two internal web servers, two mail servers and multiple file servers. Yeah, you can do the same thing with less hardware with Linux, and it's probably a bit more stable, plus less work to keep up to date, but if you know Windows, and don't know Linux, you're better off staying with Windows. You
Obvious: Use a hoster. (Score:2)
The solution is obvious - just use some $1/month hosting company and spare yourself the stress of managing something you don't (want to?) understand and the embarassment of 2500 people seeing you fail.
Not being rude, just not understanding why you would want to do that. Oh, and I'd rather go with a minimal FreeBSD installation with added Apache, PHP and MySQL instead, but that's purely CLI and therefore not what you want, plus it's not Linux. But I've used FreeBSD as web servers for more than a decade and a
Not a good idea (Score:2)
You have no experience with Linux, and given the question you're asking you likely have no experience with either PHP or MySQL. Trying to learn on the job with a public-facing server running this software is a bad idea. PHP-based forum packages routinely have security holes, as does the language itself - and you're going to give it access to a MySQL server? You're gonna get owned pretty quickly.
I really think a better solution for you is paying a hosting company to do this. They've got experience, and if th
OpenSuse (Score:2)
This is exactly what you need. ignore all the tech speak and nerd lingo.
http://www.opensuse.org/en/ [opensuse.org]
Debian Stable (Score:4, Informative)
I may get flamed by the Ubuntu/Fedora crowd for this, but for servers I use and recommend Debian stable.
There are two major reasons for this: great support and things don't change unexpectedly. Because of its long release cycle you rarely see the latest and greatest versions of anything in the repos, but if anything mission-critical is needed these can be installed manually. Some recent python libraries or Firefox builds come to mind. See http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ [debian.org] for a graphical view of recent Debian releases.
The current Stable release ("Squeeze") meets your MySQL and PHP version requirements (5.1 and 5.3.3 respectively).
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the suggestion to use Ubuntu, especially due to the massive amount of old forum posts online that will answer most questions. However, installing ubuntu-desktop will certainly give you a GUI, but that GUI won't particularly help you to administer your LAMP stack.
Going completely CLI isn't as bad as you might think - there's a relatively small number of commands you'd need to use. My advice is to find a tutorial or small book on setting up an Ubuntu LAMP server, and then keep a personal "cheat-s
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Don't fear the CLI. As the GP says, UbuntuForums is a great resource, and in many cases you can cut-n-paste commands directly from there into your terminal. If the OP is completely new to the CLI, he/she will want to be cautious about this and do some research (RTFman-page) to make sure the commands do what's wanted.
From the summary, it sounds like the OP wants to set up a forum for some group. Therefore, most of the "hard" part (the CLI stuff) will be required during initial setup. Once phpBB is up and running, most of the admin stuff will be done within the native phpBB interface.
One suggestion: get familiar with one of the numerous backup/restore utilities available. Google around for a comparative review and you'll probably find one that fits your GUI requirements. Figure out how to use it (preferably before you go live with the server) so you can easily save your bacon in case of a catastrophic fuckup.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with the suggestion to use Ubuntu, especially due to the massive amount of old forum posts online that will answer most questions. However, installing ubuntu-desktop will certainly give you a GUI, but that GUI won't particularly help you to administer your LAMP stack.
I find it very useful to have a GUI when administering an Ubuntu system. It's great to have a couple CLI windows open in which commands can be typed. I can 'tail' a log file while I type commands in another terminal window. A web browser can be used to check the results of commands that will affect the outward facing parts of the system.
When you get to using the on line support forums to help deal with issues, it's great to be able to copy a command from the web browser into a term window. I do have CLI only Ubuntu installations but I administer by SSHing into the box and administering it from the GUI on another PC.
And WRT your suggestion to keep a cheat sheet of common commands, I do that as well. I keep them in a text file so I can cut and paste them into a terminal window.
Of course this can all be done using something like PuTTY from a Windows PC but is slightly more convenient on the system console using X copy/paste. (Highlight text and paste with or middle mouse button.)
Re: (Score:2)
Good points - I was thinking along the lines of a VPS where there's no physical access to the console (since that what I generally use for projects like this). I generally keep two to four SSH sessions running, along with my web browser and whatever other software I'd like on the client side (usually a text editor for keeping my cheat-sheet), so I do use a GUI - just not on the server itself.
If you were actually working on the server itself, it would make a lot of sense to have a GUI for exactly the reason
Re: (Score:2)
When you don't have the GUI...
byobu is a nice alternative. It's a wrapper on `screen`, but it gives you shortcut keys to rapidly switch between terminals and create new ones (amongst other things).
It doesn't carry all the weight of setting up a whole bunch of client libraries on the server and an X server on the client.
Re: (Score:2)
In your terminal window, you could use control-r to search through your history of commands (start typing part of the command and the terminal will find it for you - keep pressing control-r to go back through more results). I find this a lot more convenient than pressing up repeatedly or typing out the same commands all the time :)
Re: (Score:2)
keep pressing control-r to go back through more results
You learn something new every day! I've always been frustrated by ctrl-R only hitting up the most recent, but didn't know where exactly to look for more information.
webmin? (Score:3)
I suppose I get too excited about things like webmin, and i haven't worked with it in something like eight years, but I'm going to warn you anyway.
Tools like webmin are just wrong in principle.
First, they expose way too much of the administration interface to the vagueries of ssl. (Thankfully, they usually at least give you that these days). You did notice the flap about the BEAST attack on chained block ciphers [slashdot.org] recently? (MSWindows tools also vulnerable, to the extent it's an issue.)
Don't confuse SSL with
Re:Easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised that no one here has suggested Suse/OpenSUSE yet. It's extremely easy to install and set up, with a LAMP stack, ready to go off the disk. I realize that there are some philosophical reasons amongst the free software community against Suse, but I've never cared about those, just to be frank. And once you do get familiar with the CLI, Suse has an advantage that I haven't found in any other major distro: I can go in remotely with SSH and use the CLI Yast program. which uses an NCurses interface that duplicates the GUI version of Yast. Everything's in the same place. This is absolutely wonderful. :)
I've used Ubuntu, and the last thing I want to do is start a flame war. Ubuntu LTS is extremely stable and yes, the online support is excellent. However ... it is almost entirely CLI for administration (unless you install Webmin/Virtualmin, as someone else here suggested), and if you go into the Ubuntu forums with a problem, the help provided will almost certainly be CLI. Also, speaking from experience, if it's a really puzzling problem, you'll get two or three conflicting suggestions. (Again, speaking from experience.)
Remember, the original poster's experience is entirely with Microsoft-style stuff. That's where I was a decade ago, I can still remember how difficult it was to transition to Linux. Mandrake (now Mandriva) made my switch a breeze, even though others were screaming at me to use Red Hat or Debian (both of which I tried, and both of which almost soured me to Linux entirely). When you recommend something to the OP, keep that in mind. What's easy for YOU (going into /etc and editing a file, for example) might completely baffle him or her. Now add in the fact that most error reporting under Linux is via the log files, instead of pop-up screens.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that no one here has suggested Suse/OpenSUSE yet.
SuSE is still around?
Re: (Score:3)
> SuSE is still around?
On the assumption that you're serious, try www.opensuse.org.
I personally think that their support forum is the best, by the way -- and I'm including Ubuntu in that comparison. By far.
And by the way, for the original poster: Swerdna has a complete walkthrough on setting up LAMP for OpenSuSE here:
http://www.swerdna.net.au/linux.html [swerdna.net.au]
And of course, Falko has some great stuff over at How-To Forge as well: www.howtoforge.com
Re: (Score:2)
SUSE has, essentially, not been heard of since it was split off Novell. I don't know what the status of that distribution is. At one point I would have declined to recommend it for the same reason I wouldn't recommend Mandrake: Too much pixie dust in the administration. I don't, however, know it's current status.
Yes, GUIs are quite useful. I'm NOT a neophyte, and I practically always use a GUI. But I like to be able to understand what's happening underneath. So the CLI commands need to continue to wo
Re: (Score:2)
I run a few sites with equal or slightly larger audiences as the questioner. My servers are evenly split between Ubuntu server and Debian. A few things to note:
1. Don't be afraid to go headless and learn the bit of shell commands you'll need to know. You'll need them at some point anyway. Besides, most web-based packages you'll be using these days can be administered with either a web-based interface or an administration app. eg. For administering sql servers I use Sequel Pro on my Mac and connect over
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But the performance would be less because it's not at the kernel level, and even if not, are you seriously thinking of running windows on a server? That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Even 70% of the suits know that linux is better for the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay let's learn: Windows is a Microkernel and Linux is a Monolithic kernel - fundamentally different approaches to OS architecture.
Pigs can fly and cows are ruminants - fundamentally different animals. Which one do you think is more difficult to catch, and thus less chance of making you as fat as a whale?
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: don't feed the trolls...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pay no attention to the troll, it lies. I notice you said this was personal, as in, not a non-profit. Anyways, non-profits have no lesser need of stability.
Debian's testing branch is something that they are, well, testing. As in, they're not sure it works. One offhand combination of installing scheme9 and apache-mod-lisp could bring things to a grinding halt. If anyone other than yourself is expecting it to be available in the morning, use debian stable. Heck, if you'd like it to be available in the mo
Re: (Score:2)
3.1.5 Could you tell me whether to install testing or unstable?
This is a rather subjective issue. There is no perfect answer but only a "wise guess" could be made while deciding between unstable and testing. My personal order of preference is Stable, Unstable and Testing. The issue is like this:
Stable is rock solid. It does not break.
Testing breaks less often than Unstable. But when it breaks, it takes a long time for things to get rectified. Sometimes this could be days and it could be months at times.
Unstable changes a lot, and it can break at any point. However, fixes get rectified in many occasions in a couple of days and it always has the latest releases of software packaged for Debian.
But there are times when tracking testing would be beneficial as opposed to unstable. The author such situation due to the gcc transition from gcc3 to gcc4. He was trying to install the labplot package on a machine tracking unstable and it could not be installed in unstable as some of its dependencies have undergone gcc4 transition and some have not. But the package in testing was installable on a testing machine as the gcc4 transitioned packages had not "trickled down" to testing.
Re: (Score:2)
1) rely on Debian and their 500 mirrors to keep your security up to date. The debian maintainer group outnumbers you, oh, about a hundred to one, so if you're planning on deploying your own hand compiled security patches you're doing it wrong... just "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade" on a regular basis and/or when you see something interesting on the security mailing list.
2) Speaking of #1 above, "apt-get install phpbb3". Its a maintained package... Unless you're a better maintainer than the package
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe MySql "just works", but pgsql "works properly"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, years of experience trumps statements by random /. posters. Years of running large line-of-business applications has clearly taught me that admin of pgsql is a pain in the ass, and the way many features are implemented in MySQL is simply more straightforward and easier to support. Nor have I ever witnessed any of the mysterious "doesn't do it right" nonsense. MySQL just works. It works in a way that is clearly designed to make administering it as easy as possible. PGSQL OTOH seems to have some other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
turnkeylinux.org has great LAMP appliances, along with other loadable VMs. Free.
Re: (Score:2)
That looks pretty amazing, I was thinking about setting up my own VM for my webserver soon, and that sounds like it has some really cool infrastructure for management/backups - thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to recommend turnkey linux also. They have a PHPBB turnkey linux, and their backup solution to Amazon S3 ROCKS. So cheap to keep a backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mandriva - YES (Score:2)
I agree. Mandriva is a very newbie-friendly, easy to install and configure distro.
PLF.zarb.org provides lots of patent-encumbered software, but there is a lot in the CONTRIB repositories.
Has great hardware detection and their sysadmin tools are very easy to use/understand.
I've used the LAMP-task RPM before and it requires minimal post-install configuration.