[noggin]

My unRAID server went from being a pile of bits to being fully configured (via a simple web interface) in a lot less time than it would have taken me to install Windows from the installation DVD.

I did ensure I had compatible hardware by following a recommended build, but configuration didn't involve anything more than downloading the unRAID OS and flashing it to a USB stick, booting from it, and then pointing my web browser at the server.

And the HP Proliant Microserver install was trivial. Download image, burn image to USB, boot from USB. Done.

[XBL.]

Many prefer a striped down OS and SSH while others prefer ease of use and maintenance. Neither is right or wrong.

Imo these things go hand in hand. Less software = less chances of stuff going wrong. And when it does wrong, it's so much easier to debug.

[MrCrispy]

My unRAID server went from being a pile of bits to being fully configured (via a simple web interface) in a lot less time than it would have taken me to install Windows from the installation DVD.

I did ensure I had compatible hardware by following a recommended build, but configuration didn't involve anything more than downloading the unRAID OS and flashing it to a USB stick, booting from it, and then pointing my web browser at the server.

And the HP Proliant Microserver install was trivial. Download image, burn image to USB, boot from USB. Done.

That's not the same thing though. unRaid is an appliance and setup to be easy to use.

But if you compare installing an OS (Linux vs Windows), configuring disks/RAID, updating and getting device drivers, then Windows will be far easier unless you happen to be a Linux expert, and just as important, its much easier to find help for Windows (google) and apply the solution (no cmd line).

[black_eagle]

But if you compare installing an OS (Linux vs Windows), configuring disks/RAID, updating and getting device drivers, then Windows will be far easier unless you happen to be a Linux expert, and just as important, its much easier to find help for Windows (google) and apply the solution (no cmd line).

Don't agree at all. Installing Linux is as easy as installing Windows. Further, upgrading is just as simple in Linux as it is in Windows, except Linux doesn't usually need to reboot and spend 1/2 an hour doing updates.

Most Linux distro's these days offer a similar interface to Windows, although of course, the power of Linux is 'under the hood' in the cmd line you refer to.

Funnily enough, I seem to recall that Windows was originally a DOS program, and therefore ran on this cmd line you refer to. The power of DOS was of course the ability to do stuff through the command line, and this is something that seems to have been lost through GUI interfaces and drag and drop mouse stuff.

I can point to plenty of instances where Windows certainly isn't better than Linux, both software and hardware related.

If Windows is so good, why does 90% of the internet run on Linux/Unix boxes

I'm not after a fight here, or a fanboi this OS is better than that, we can start a new thread for that if you like, but, for a server OS, which is what the OP asked about, IMHO, there isn't a better solution than Linux. It supports more hardware, takes up less memory and therefore runs much faster than a Windows equivalent. And that's including a full GUI to administer it.

Also, it doesn't tell you to upgrade your hardware every time there is a new release.

[MrCrispy]

Well, lets not turn this into a OS war (plenty of those going on). You appear to be a power user. I use Linux for my day job but would never inflict it on someone who doesn't know it, the cmd line that we love (or rather bash shell) is a huge liability for non-techie people, and you can't avoid it. the funny thing is Linux copies Windows UI metaphors with regularity, and I hate what Gnome and Unity are moving towards.

Also I very much disagree that Linux is faster, supports more hardware or uses less memory. That's simply false with no facts to support it.

And there is no distinction between client/server for home use. A Linux/Windows install, say Linux Mint/Ubuntu/Windows 7/8, is a perfectly capable server out of the box.

[.:B:.]

But if you compare installing an OS (Linux vs Windows), configuring disks/RAID, updating and getting device drivers, then Windows will be far easier unless you happen to be a Linux expert, and just as important, its much easier to find help for Windows (google) and apply the solution (no cmd line).

Erm...

Let's see.

Windows
1) You install Windows. Windows will ask you for your motherboard's RAID drivers, if all goes well (keep them handy on a USB stick).
2) You can cobble together all the drivers you need that Windows didn't install itself (XP, Vista, better on Windows 7 but still nowhere close to what Linux offers).
3) RAID on Windows is, like mentioned before, either motherboard RAID ('FakeRAID') or Windows software RAID. The latter is only available a) through hacks (e.g. in XP) or when you are running the server versions of Windows. Not sure about the price tag for the server versions, but it's not as 'cheap' as a regular Windows version (or a free Linux ISO). The former is a recipe for disaster, it's a black box, you cannot migrate between motherboards unless you have the exact same chipsets (maybe it will work from chip A to B from the same vendor, but it's at your own risk). Migration possibility: virtually zero.

Linux
1) You install Linux. It might support your motherboard RAID, or it might not. Either way, ignore it, Linux's mdraid solution is far superior to the crappy motherboard solutions vendors offer as a 'feature'.
2) Linux will pull in any updates (not just security fixes but also driver updates) during its installation, provided you're connected to the internet. Granted, there are gaps in Linux's hardware support, but it's a lot better than it used to be, and if you do consider RAID and all the bells and whistles yet do insist on running a wireless connection on your server with the latest 802.11ac adapter you just got, you're looking for trouble, not just with Linux. Short of that, there's not a single area where Linux driver support is a problem.
3) Feel free to pick among the myriad of possibilities mdraid offers, integrated into the (graphical) installer on many major Linux distributions. Migration possibility: virtually 100%, mdraid is provided by every major Linux distribution.

Sure, you will need to get your hands dirty on Linux at some point and touch that wretched command line. But mucking around in the Windows registry is equally intimidating, I've been doing that for years now, and I'm more comfortable on a Linux command line than in regedit.

[nickr]

The last time I installed windows it didn't even have the fucking drivers for the Ethernet on my motherboard. I had to download them onto another computer and sneakernet them to the new machine. And they say Linux is unfriendly. At least it has 99% of the drivers you need on the install disk, and actually gives you network drivers out of the box so you can get any others you need. (Like nvidia).

[two515ty]

Well, lets not turn this into a OS war (plenty of those going on). You appear to be a power user. I use Linux for my day job but would never inflict it on someone who doesn't know it, the cmd line that we love (or rather bash shell) is a huge liability for non-techie people, and you can't avoid it. the funny thing is Linux copies Windows UI metaphors with regularity, and I hate what Gnome and Unity are moving towards.

That's not true, at least for FreeNAS. I also run a Ubuntu liveUSB sometimes and never ever use command line for anything. I use it the same way I do Windows: all through a GUI.

Watch this playlist (or at least skim through it). I'll admit I didn't watch all of the videos, but I don't believe I saw any command line in any of the parts that I watched. The way FreeNAS is setup, most (if not all) of the basic config is done through the GUI, and you shouldn't need to be a Linux or command line expert to use it. Except for some advanced commands like running commands from within a jail (which you shouldn't need to do unless you're getting into power user stuff), I hardly ever actually use the command line on my FreeNAS box.

I'll agree that command line can be a big scare for those who don't understand it, but at the same time, it's not nearly as big an issue when it comes to FreeNAS, and probably even unRAID. Maybe if you're trying to use Debian, Ubuntu, or some other Linux Distro that's not designed to be a user-friendly NAS software, you might have to get into command line.

Also I very much disagree that Linux is faster, supports more hardware or uses less memory. That's simply false with no facts to support it.

http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-msft-deve...000015236/

I think it's kind of a well known fact that Linux is generally faster, but that also depends on your application and the kind of hardware you're using.

Hardware support is hard to talk about, simply because it depends on what kind of hardware you're talking about. Many mainstream devices don't have much official Linux support because the companies making them don't want to develop and troubleshoot drivers and software for several different Linux distributions.In the desktop PC world, there is a greater possibility that Windows will have better support for certain popular hardware or that it will have it before Linux does. For things like servers and especially for older hardware, you'll probably have a better time with Linux.

As far as memory, Linux is generally said to have a smaller footprint than Windows, but that also depends on which distribution you use.

And there is no distinction between client/server for home use. A Linux/Windows install, say Linux Mint/Ubuntu/Windows 7/8, is a perfectly capable server out of the box.

Indeed this is technically true, but most people generally want to have the advanced options that come with dedicated server software that you might not get as easily in a simple desktop installation.

---

The last time I installed windows it didn't even have the fucking drivers for the Ethernet on my motherboard. I had to download them onto another computer and sneakernet them to the new machine. And they say Linux is unfriendly. At least it has 99% of the drivers you need on the install disk, and actually gives you network drivers out of the box so you can get any others you need. (Like nvidia).

To be honest though, this just depends on whatever hardware you're using. That's not necessarily an issue or function of the OS itself, it's just a matter of the hardware you chose. It would be an entirely different issue if the drivers for your Ethernet interface just weren't available on Windows, but given the popularity of Windows and the mass market appeal, I don't think it's realistic to expect it to come with every driver for every hardware. If your hardware comes out after the current version of Windows is released, the drivers aren't going to be integrated into the Windows release as quickly as easily as the Linux version because Microsoft can't just throw in new drivers into the install disc like a Linux distro can.

[nickr]

I never know why people who can type quite literately on a forum think that they can't type on a command line, particularly now that there are so many howto sites out there from which you can copy and paste.

[two515ty]

I never know why people who can type quite literately on a forum think that they can't type on a command line, particularly now that there are so many howto sites out there from which you can copy and paste.

Command line is scary to people because it requires a lot more thinking on the person's part, especially in Linux where things like capitalization make a huge difference. Typing out thoughts is nothing more than transcription of your ideas, which most people can do adequately (although these days, grammar and punctuation seem to be completely optional). Working with command line is like learning a new language, and it requires you carefully parse both the input and output, understand it, and then know how to proceed to the next step. I don't think it's quite the same as typing out forum posts.

If you're following a step-by-step guide, then it can be pretty easy to get by. At the same time, people like me still forget certain simple commands like how to delete a folder that's not empty :-\ Of course I google it or look at the --help options and figure it out in 2 seconds. However, your average user might not be so smart and would get frustrated and quit, or try to delete the file(s) in the folder first lol (yes, I've seen someone make that recommendation smh).

[MrCrispy]

I never know why people who can type quite literately on a forum think that they can't type on a command line, particularly now that there are so many howto sites out there from which you can copy and paste.

Because there's no 'edit' button on a pc and you can literally write whatever on a forum. The cmd line is so powerful precisely because its so dangerous. Why should people be comfortable using it??

Seriously though, its well known humans are visual. We do every single thing in our life by looking then using hand eye coordination to manipulate something. You don't change channels, eat, dress, drive, or literally anything else by typing into a cmd line, do you? The first invention of the GUI (at Xerox PARC) along with the mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos) was quite literally a revolution in computer science.

[two515ty]

@two515ty
I just compared the cost of unregistered DDR3 ECC RAM and regular DDR3 ECC RAM and the costs were very similar.

I must have missed this post. Even if the cost of ECC-RAM is similar (but it wouldn't be, I got both of my 8 GB sticks on sale for $55 each), the cost of an ECC compatible motherboard is usually much higher. More importantly, for my case, there are very few motherboards that support ECC. Even if I went with one of those motherboards, it would have increased my costs even more because I would have had to buy a separate CPU (I use an NM70-I2 which has an embedded CPU). At the end of the day, ECC just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Most of the stuff on my server is media that I am not attached to. Stuff that really needs to be backed up is on an external drive and on Dropbox, so the money I saved on skipping ECC can be put towards more disks.

[smitbret]

@two515ty
I just compared the cost of unregistered DDR3 ECC RAM and regular DDR3 ECC RAM and the costs were very similar.

I must have missed this post. Even if the cost of ECC-RAM is similar (but it wouldn't be, I got both of my 8 GB sticks on sale for $55 each), the cost of an ECC compatible motherboard is usually much higher. More importantly, for my case, there are very few motherboards that support ECC. Even if I went with one of those motherboards, it would have increased my costs even more because I would have had to buy a separate CPU (I use an NM70-I2 which has an embedded CPU). At the end of the day, ECC just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Most of the stuff on my server is media that I am not attached to. Stuff that really needs to be backed up is on an external drive and on Dropbox, so the money I saved on skipping ECC can be put towards more disks.

Depends on your setup. That's one reason I went with an AMD AM3+ setup. Almost all of the Asus Motherboards that support AM3+ also support ECC, $50 for an mATX board with onboard video and 6 SATA ports. You can be in a MB/CPU/ECC Memory for right about $200.

[two515ty]

@two515ty
I just compared the cost of unregistered DDR3 ECC RAM and regular DDR3 ECC RAM and the costs were very similar.

I must have missed this post. Even if the cost of ECC-RAM is similar (but it wouldn't be, I got both of my 8 GB sticks on sale for $55 each), the cost of an ECC compatible motherboard is usually much higher. More importantly, for my case, there are very few motherboards that support ECC. Even if I went with one of those motherboards, it would have increased my costs even more because I would have had to buy a separate CPU (I use an NM70-I2 which has an embedded CPU). At the end of the day, ECC just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Most of the stuff on my server is media that I am not attached to. Stuff that really needs to be backed up is on an external drive and on Dropbox, so the money I saved on skipping ECC can be put towards more disks.

Depends on your setup. That's one reason I went with an AMD AM3+ setup. Almost all of the Asus Motherboards that support AM3+ also support ECC, $50 for an mATX board with onboard video and 6 SATA ports. You can be in a MB/CPU/ECC Memory for right about $200.

But what about mini-itx though? And like I said, my embedded CPU/motherboard saved me a lot of money. I got the mobo, CPU, and 16 GB of RAM (2 x 8 GB) for $180. I don't see any 2 x 8 GB sets that are ECC capable. If they're out there, they probably cost a lot more than $110.

[noggin]

@two515ty
I just compared the cost of unregistered DDR3 ECC RAM and regular DDR3 ECC RAM and the costs were very similar.

I must have missed this post. Even if the cost of ECC-RAM is similar (but it wouldn't be, I got both of my 8 GB sticks on sale for $55 each), the cost of an ECC compatible motherboard is usually much higher. More importantly, for my case, there are very few motherboards that support ECC. Even if I went with one of those motherboards, it would have increased my costs even more because I would have had to buy a separate CPU (I use an NM70-I2 which has an embedded CPU). At the end of the day, ECC just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Most of the stuff on my server is media that I am not attached to. Stuff that really needs to be backed up is on an external drive and on Dropbox, so the money I saved on skipping ECC can be put towards more disks.

That was one of the additional bonuses of the HP Proliant Microservers. They came with ECC RAM and the motherboard was ECC compatible. In the UK they were going for less than £100 after cash back for quite a while (may still be - haven't checked). It was a good match with unRAID.