SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Helsingborg, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just uploaded a script I've been working on for quite some time to my host and to my surprice the script ran 4x as fast as it does on my Duron 1050 Windows 2000 machine! ****! Is Linux really that much faster when it comes to Apache/PHP/MySQL or does my host have one helluva server? How much faster would it run here at home if I installed Linux?

    I'm planning on installing Linux, but I have no idea what distribution I should pick. I want a dist that doesn't come with a lot of ****. I want the basics. It will only be used for testing PHP/MySQL.
    "Some people play hard to get - I play hard to want."

  2. #2
    Dumb PHP codin' cat
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It would definetly run a hella lot faster on Linux than NT just from PHP's standpoint. Get your distro from Red Hat's ftp site and you can specify when you install it to not have all the extra garbage.
    Please don't PM me with questions.
    Use the forums, that is what they are here for.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It should be faster on a web server as it is optimised for doing such tasks and doing them well. As for a distro try RedHat or SuSE.
    Karl Austin :: Profile :: KDA Web Services Ltd.
    Business Web Hosting :: Managed Dedicated Hosting
    Call 0800 542 9764 today and ask how we can help your business grow.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Helsingborg, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've heard a lot of **** about RedHat being the "bloated" distibution. Any truth in that?
    "Some people play hard to get - I play hard to want."

  5. #5
    chown linux:users\ /world Hartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    6,455
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I personally am not a big fan of RedHat. I like SuSE and thats about it. RedHat comes with stuff you don't need but what distribution doesn't?

  6. #6
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whatever your point of view on RedHat's distro, it's very easy to remove the RPMs that you don't need. There are a lot to remove for pretty much any distro (IMHO).
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)

  7. #7
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    533
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    bloated means it comes with lots of software ...

    however, linux is not like windows.. it does not waste resources just by having the software installed .. windows on the other hand, is weird
    cogito, ergo sum

  8. #8
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Helsingborg, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm just waiting for someone to create a GUI that doesn't look so bad. I've seen tons of screenshots, but I never really saw anything I liked. KDE is the best I've seen, bit I don't lite it that much.

    I'm a big fan of the looks of MacOS 9 (not X) and I must say that Windows 2000 isn't looking too bad eigher.
    "Some people play hard to get - I play hard to want."

  9. #9
    ********* Callithumpian silver trophy freakysid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Rickard
    I'm just waiting for someone to create a GUI that doesn't look so bad.
    Here it is ...

    [user@localhost /user]$

  10. #10
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL at freaksyid

    I must admit that the commandline is the easiest way to use Linux for many tasks, but if you need a good WindowManager which looks good as well, try KDE 2.0.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Enthusiast vsantola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mandrake 7.2 is your solution!

    If you are moving from Micro$oft Bindows (windows) try this distro... it's very user-friendly and you can choose everthing what you want or not want in the installation process... you will love this one...

    try it...

    Valter Santos

    rooco is my creature (a mix of a bear with a kanguroo)... he is trained in perl, PHP and is getting a java certification right now

  12. #12
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <<Mandrake 7.2 is your solution!>>

    I second that

    For 'newbies' to Linux, Mandrake is the best distro to start with. I've used it for a few weeks now and I start to feel really at home on a Linux PC. Sometimes I just shake my head when I look at how Windows does stuff compared to Linux...

    Especially the way Linux handles programs (binairy folder, doc folder etc.) keeps things neat and tidy. Best thing is that Linux is DLHell free (no .dll files or comparable) and the system I run Linux on (Celeron 400, 64 MB RAM) is nearly as fast as my Win2k PC (Duron 600, 128 MB RAM).

    Mandrake for people starting with Linux and for workstations, SuSe/Mandrake/Slackware/Debian/etc. for the server and other tasks for which more power is necessary.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  13. #13
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Helsingborg, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, thanks. I think I'll have a go at Mandrake then. Cheers!
    "Some people play hard to get - I play hard to want."

  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Elledan

    Especially the way Linux handles programs (binairy folder, doc folder etc.) keeps things neat and tidy. Best thing is that Linux is DLHell free (no .dll files or comparable) and the system I run Linux on (Celeron 400, 64 MB RAM) is nearly as fast as my Win2k PC (Duron 600, 128 MB RAM).
    No DLL files or comparable, ermmm - what about .so files, you know Shared Objects that are used by many programs?

    I think you will find that .so files are the Linux equivelant.
    Karl Austin :: Profile :: KDA Web Services Ltd.
    Business Web Hosting :: Managed Dedicated Hosting
    Call 0800 542 9764 today and ask how we can help your business grow.

  15. #15
    chown linux:users\ /world Hartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    6,455
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mandrake is a good distro for newbies yes... But SuSE is Linux God!!! I am already geared up for v7.1 with the 2.4 Kernel

  16. #16
    SitePoint Addict ibeblunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Will Mandrake allow for a dual-OS install?
    <///////~

    www.sohh.com

  17. #17
    chown linux:users\ /world Hartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Houston, TX, USA
    Posts
    6,455
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You mean like 2 partitions? Sure it does, it will ask you which one you want to boot to at every startup.

  18. #18
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Karl
    Originally posted by Elledan

    Especially the way Linux handles programs (binairy folder, doc folder etc.) keeps things neat and tidy. Best thing is that Linux is DLHell free (no .dll files or comparable) and the system I run Linux on (Celeron 400, 64 MB RAM) is nearly as fast as my Win2k PC (Duron 600, 128 MB RAM).
    No DLL files or comparable, ermmm - what about .so files, you know Shared Objects that are used by many programs?

    I think you will find that .so files are the Linux equivelant.
    True, but you'll also find that there are far less .so files in Linux than .dll files in Windows, and the few .so files you'll find in Linux are shared by so many programs instead of every program you install adding more .so files.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  19. #19
    There is no general chat z0s0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1998
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A search revealed 378 .so's on my GNU/linux box (which is running a bare minimum server installation - no GUI, nothing!) and 821 on my NT box.

    But really, it's entirely irrelevant. The more modular the code, the more efficient and less bloated it's likely to be. But this comes at the cost of speed. NT probably does have more DLLs than GNU/Linux has .so's, but few would claim it's less bloated and more efficient than GNU/linux!

    Rickard - I'd watch our for RedHat 7.x's broken compiler, referred to by none other than Linus Torvalds as "useless" from a development standpoint. I suggest you stick with 6.2 for now.
    Wormly Server Performance Monitoring
    Don't wait for an SMS at 4am. Find out what's really
    going on and fix the problem. www.wormly.com/website-monitoring

  20. #20
    midnight coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The flat edge of the world
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    About that speed thing...you DID installed PHP4 in Win2000 as module right?

    I'm not sure about the speed between Win2000 and Linux, but installing PHP as module in Win2000 runs a lot faster than without.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Helsingborg, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Robo: Yes, I did.

    While we are discussing Linux. If I wanted to install Linux onto an old Pentium-system or something like that. What distro would you guys recommend for that? The things I am planning on running on it is Apache, PHP, MySQL, some kind of firewall and perhaps some kind of FTP-server. This "server" will NOT serve a lot of users. I just want to get these things of my surrent workstation and I thought that putting Linux on an old puter and installing this stuff on that would do the trick. In the process I might actually learn something about this very talked about OS. Yeah, I know, I problably should invest in "a little more computer", but as I said, the "server" will probably only be for personal use.

    I read somewhere about something called Edge Fireplug. It's a super-small Linux-distro used for turning your old 486+ into a nice home broadband firewall. I really like the idea, but will something like that be too "small" to run Apache and MySQL and stuff like that on? Does it only do the firewall thing or can it be used as a regular distro?
    "Some people play hard to get - I play hard to want."

  22. #22
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Linux vs. Windows

    I attempted nearly every distro of linux when I was trying to setup my webserver (mandrake, suse, debian, caldera, slackware) and only mandrake and caldera would recognize my hardware raid card. I worked with both of them and found them both to be extremely unstable and slow. I experimented with FreeBSD and I have to say that it was very nice. It was not only MUCH faster than linux, it was MUCH more stable and wasn't bloatware like alot of linux distros. If you are setting up a box for use only as a web server, try FreeBSD.

  23. #23
    SitePoint Enthusiast cragthehack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL. USA
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    windows XP

    I hate to mention this But, Windows XP is really nice. I've been using a preview for about a month now.. and I gotta tell you MS FINALLY got it right. Do I like it better than Linux, no.. but it's the best MS has ever done. And it's skinable... very nice...
    Last edited by cragthehack; Oct 5, 2001 at 13:01.
    - crag
    net geek for non profits and political campaings

  24. #24
    SitePoint Enthusiast geeOff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA 30328
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    on the speed thing...i have been developing in win 2000 w/ PHP4 for a couple of months now...finally got around to finishing a redhat 7.1 Linux box: base install no x-windows, with samba & stripped of all the crap that seemed unecessary. seeems MUCH faster & i swear things w/ sessions that didn't seems to work on win 2k work like gold on linux.

    Geoff


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •