blubell

I need to set up a web site containing a chat room, pages of information, photos and links.

Propose to set up and run myself..so what software would you guys recommend as being reasonably easy to use but look professional.

stevencotton

Depends if you want off-the-(?:shelf|net) products, or want to write your own, but definitely steer clear of any Microsoft product unless you want unreliability and the worry of things like Code Red.

Steve.

blubell

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR> but definitely steer clear of any Microsoft product unless you want unreliability and the worry of things like Code Red.

Steve.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why I ask - have tried MS and not very impressed. I would like off the shelf, but not sure that funds will permit. However I equally don't have loads of time to spend on writing it all myself....would rather be out playing in the Scoob

stevencotton

Grab yourself FreeBSD or Linux (Debian is the best distro IMO), they're free of course. Apache is also free. An Apache installation (from source, I wouldn't use a distribution supplied rpm) only takes 15 minutes, you'll then be serving static content. For chatrooms and the like you'll need some back end application, maybe a database depending on what you're after, MySQL is free. I'm in the middle of writing a small content management system which will run under Apache and mod_perl, I'm going to have a message board there running as a Template Toolkit plugin pulling stuff out of MySQL database. You're more than welcome to have it for nothing when I'm done, but I don't know when that'll be. Feel free to mail me though, medium/large scale back end web based apps/CMS is my thing

Steve.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Jan

Email webbie

Does something similar I believe...

andymac

MS or non-MS is the main question.
It also depends what you mean when you say "setting up your own site". That could be either I've got some pages I want to put on the web (and have somebody host them for you), or have you got a permy connection (broadband / cable) and you want to install a webserver on your own machine.

The various MS issues come largely from people who don't follow MS's security (and other industry security peoples) advice to keep their web servers patched and up to date. It's also a bit easier to write interactive content pages (from scratch) using ASP than CGI if you've never done any server side programming before.

There's plenty of free forum / chat type stuff out there on the net but you then need to try and integrate everything with the same look and feel for a decent looking site.

cheers
Andy

stevencotton

Microsoft operating systems are inherently unstable compared to UNIX variants, no question about it. I'd never use NT in a DMZ, it's just not reliable or secure enough (`Apache - The Definitive Guide' from O'Reilly doesn't even bother talking about SSL and security on NT for that reason, and explains why). ASP is not a CGI alternative, CGI is an interface to running executable programs on the server via HTTP whereas ASP is a page scripting language that's parsed by the webserver prior to delivery to the client. PHP is an alternative and, to a lesser extent, SSI. I'd be very wary of using pre-written scripts/programs to implement desired functionality, Matts Script Archive for instance which contains lots of free Perl CGI scripts is full of caveats and security holes that the novice wouldn't know about, running one of these scripts could possibly compromise your server completely - and without you even knowing about it until it's too late.

Steve.

blubell

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Puff The Magic Wagon!:
<B>Jan

Email webbie

Does something similar I believe...

[/quote]

Doh

KF

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Microsoft operating systems are inherently unstable compared to UNIX variants, no question about it
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Erm, I think there is a question about it. Can you show me some proof? Which windows are you talking about?
Cheers
KF.

stevencotton

Err .. isn't it common knowledge? I have UNIX boxes with over a year uptime here. I don't want to get into yet another OS war, but OS's from Redmond require rebooting a little too often for me.

Steve.

stevencotton

There's a lot of interesting info at

blubell

Thanks guys - after Steves response I have decided it is all beyond me and I think I have found someone who will host for free

Steve - remind me NEVER to ask you anything remotely tecnical again

stevencotton

Sorry, hope I didn't scare you off! If you need help with anything though feel free to ask.

Steve.

KF

Steve,
That article is about NT4. Not trying to start a war, just give some balance. I run 2k, and have never had a problem, ever.

I agree that unless you know what you are doing, you are swimming with sharks, and the choice of OS is moot. You are going to struggle to maintain a secure site.

KF.

stevencotton

Windows still leaks memory, always has done.

I set up large scale development and production environments using various databases and J2EE based applications, we use Solaris and Linux because of the proven unreliability of Microsoft products that have been used in the past. We do run a few Dynamo instances on NT, but only so the developers can have one locally. I have a Win2k machine right here on my desk (purely so I can use MeetingMaker), whilst it hasn't crashed on me yet it's still leaking memory - hardly the basis for a server. Oh, I am talking servers here, not desktops. Windows just doesn't scale I'm afraid, and makes my life very difficult.

Steve.

KF

Sorry Steve, you have me totally confused...

Obviously you are talking way over my head.
Can you explain to me how,
a) Windows should scale
b) you know that Windows leaks memory.
Cheers
KF.

KF

Deep breath...

Scaling:
If you are talking about Windows scaling (which I take it is what you meant, as that is what you wrote), you mean adding hardware resources.
Or, do you actually mean horizontal and vertical scaling of the web services?

Quite different... one is Windows, the other is an application that runs on Windows.
I was trying to ascertain what you were implying... that's all.

UNIX (whatever flavour) leaked on day one. They release new versions because the last wasn't perfect. Keep up with the patches, and you will find that any leaks you have are because of crappy application software written by 3rd parties... like... erm MeetingMaker If you write rubbish software, it will leak on any operating system.

This discussion arose because you lambasted windows. You are right that there is place for each, but in the context of someone wanting to start a simple web site, I was trying to point out that Windows 2000 is not the 3rd class citizen you make it out to be.
I wouldn't tell him to by Solaris. Linux is worth considering, but I am not convinced it offers any advantages over Windows 2000 for the novice.

Don't proclaim that somthing is shoddy unless you can prove it (as someday someone will ask you to )

Have fun,
KF.

stevencotton

Fair enough, recommending something with a steep learning curve to a novice wasn't the best thing for me to do But still, Win2k has to prove itself yet, and for me it's tarnished by previous offerings from Mr Gates, which have already proved to be unreliable. Scaling at the app level is what I meant, and if your OS is a bit top heavy (since it's trying to be jack of all trades instead of allowing you to tune it to your needs) then it needs more resources as Windows still does. I can run UNIX on a lot less hardware, which a lot of people find useful if they're on a budget. Recent (June 2001) article on theregister.co.uk says in a survey, Win2k still "required 300% more unnecessary reboots than UNIX", which is only three times as many but still more. It is better than previous offerings but still has a little way to go. The only proof I have is my own 11 years experience in the field using these operating systems day in day out, so I'll continue to use UNIX until MS makes an OS that's as configurable and (in my mind) as sturdy and reliable, with as much free (usenet, maillist) support and as much choice of first class (free) software and as open as UN*X, without trying to enforce poor protocol implementations or intertwining services into the OS itself. MS sells Windows for profit, Linux developers do it for fun. I know who I'd trust more.

Steve.

blubell

Ok Guys any of you got experience of using

stevencotton

KF,

I'd look up what "scaling" means, you have the Internet at your disposal Windows has leaked memory since day one, only a hardcore advocate would deny it. Also who are MS to decide what GUI I should use? One kernel fits all, not very efficient considering the amount of hardware out there. But hey, like David said, whatever suits you. I know I'd be a lot less effective if I had a bunch of NT boxes to admin, remote admin of many NT machines is never going to be as easy as a bunch of UNIX machines. I also have a lot more choice since I'm not bound by MS's licences or broken standards implementations (DNS for one), but if your company absolutely requires a one-stop-shop for all their solution needs and has money to burn on licensing and support, go for it.

Steve.

David_Wallis

Normally I would argue on behalf of microsoft and say that something like 70% of problems with people using there software is that it isnt setup right... I would also argue about putting an NT box on a dmz as our firewall is NT based..

How many people know what hotfixes and post sp6a hotfixes are available for iis? not that many and its bloody hard to make sure you havent missed any...

However I have to say that windows is never going to touch solaris or scale like an E10000....

Also Checkpoint Firewall 1 on NT 4 or Sun / Solaris I bet I know which is more popular... (not saying fw1 is the best though..)

All I say is each to your own... Pick what you know best.. If I used Linux then it would be a lot more unsecure than my nt4 server as I dont know linux...

Anyway Intel can Scale... IBM NumaQ ... One ***** f.. nuff said.

David

KF

I think we have an understanding here.

I am not particularly an advocate of any platform in particular, and just wanted to clarify my understanding of your thoughts.

I have no doubts that you are better off running Unix, and I have no doubts that others will have more success with Windows 2000. Personally I hope that XP raises the bar again, and then, perhaps, MS will be able to convince people they are a serious contender - and given their new licencing model, they will need to!

I agree that Windows is a jack of all trades, and correspondingly is going to find it hard to compete with a bespoke system tweeked by a knowlegable admin. This is also its strength, and so long as one takes this into account the purchasing decisions will be better.

Competition? I love it... We win!
Cheers,
KF.