Server OS for old PC

[easylife]

Hi, I got a shiny new laptop a few weeks ago, something that I talked about in this thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1687), so I have an old desktop PC that I would like to turn into some sort of server - Apache/PHP/MySQL, proxy, and file/printer server if possible! :D

First off, I would like something free. :D I don't have the money to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for some Microsoft IIS thingy. I would also like it to be stable, so i was thinking about going for something UNIX-based. I think that the two main UNIX based free OSs are Linux and FreeBSD. Linux is the way to go because things like PHP require Linux.

As for distributions, I think (could be wrong) that the most popular are RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, and Slackware. What I need is an OS to run on a P100 with 40 (yes 40) MB RAM and a 500MB hard drive (I want to put the OS on one HD, files and such on another).

I also like how RedHat has something you can download to share files and printers with Windows PCs! :) Will this addon work with other Linux distributions? :?

So... can anyone help me deicde on an OS please? :? Any comments and suggestions are welcome! :D

[easylife]

Sorry for the rambing if you read this earlier - I just edited it a bit so it's a bit more readable. :) I was rushing to get all my thoughts down but I didn't have time to organize them.

When I say 'proxy server' I mean something I can use to bridge an internet connection to a home network. The Apache/PHP/MySQL will be so I can host my own website on my own computer. Does Apache support POP3/SMTP mail services or FTP?

Lastly, as you no doubt have guessed, this post is intended to 'bump' my topic up a bit. :wink:

[DimensionZero]

Personally, I user RedHat, it's much easire to use in the sense that there are soooo many HOWTOs out there on everything. Most are based around RedHat, but are completely portable across other distributions.

500MB might be a little tight, and you'll want to create a swap partition on the other hard drive...

But as for everything you want to do, yes. You can.
Windows file/printer sharing is called Samba
The proxy server, you can use IPTables (i have the few lines you'll need to enable this)
Apache is just a ewbserver, you'll need to install/configure sendmail to do mail
FTP, there are a few, most everyone tells me to use proFTPd as it seems to be the best...

All this is available on the RedHat install CDs, there were a few recent patches to sendmail, and openSSH you'll want to check out and install...

But, other than that... Should be fairly straight forward, the RedHat graphical installation interface makes things really easy and explains pretty much the whole process and what's what... The text mode isn't as friendly, but works much the same.

Good luck!

[easylife]

Thanks for the info! :D

I was personally leaning towards RedHat myself as it's the most popular distibution, but I wanted to make an educated descision before downloading gigabytes over dialup. :) However, on the RedHat site it states that you need at least 200MHz to run the command line and 400MHz to run the GUI. I have a 100MHz processor... :(

[Janak Parekh]

Dial-up!?!?!?!? 8O

Don't. Just don't. Go to a friend who has broadband, download the ISOs, and burn CDs.

Also, it should run on a 100MHz processor, but it may be rather slow to start or run X. Do realize that if you've never used Linux before there is some learning curve, although it's a worthwhile experience.

--janak

[easylife]

Do realize that if you've never used Linux before there is some learning curve, although it's a worthwhile experience.
Right! :D That's exactly why I'm going Linux (or FreeBSD or whatever) - I want to learn about this stuff! 8) I'm not expecting a web server/proxy server/file-print server anytime soon, but I figured that I would lay out the general direction in which I wanted to go so I could install the best OS possible! :)

Oh, and I've conquered several hundred megabytes before - I think I'm up to the challenge of downloading CD images! :twisted:

[ctmagnus]

Do realize that if you've never used Linux before there is some learning curve, although it's a worthwhile experience.
Right! :D That's exactly why I'm going Linux (or FreeBSD or whatever) - I want to learn about this stuff! 8) I'm not expecting a web server/proxy server/file-print server anytime soon, but I figured that I would lay out the general direction in which I wanted to go so I could install the best OS possible! :)

Oh, and I've conquered several hundred megabytes before - I think I'm up to the challenge of downloading CD images! :twisted:

Might I suggest Knoppix (http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-old-en.html)? It's a bootable Linux CD that gets you into the OS without having to install, repartition or format anything. It'll get you up and running quicker, but if you want to go the installation route, please ignore this entire post. ;)

[maximus]

Oh, and I've conquered several hundred megabytes before - I think I'm up to the challenge of downloading CD images! :twisted:

Ah, the bliss of 24hr internet dial-up and free local calls ....

[DimensionZero]

dialup!? *shiver*

Man i remember the days of dialup.
My first modem was a 1200baud which later was upgraded to 14.4 and then 56k.

Man, i remember downloading MP3s and stuff of 14.4 it was painful. I love my cable connection, you'll never see me using dialup anymore! =)

[easylife]

OK, here are a few more ideas:

Someone commented that RedHat's previous versions may not require as much processor power than their current '9' version. Is this true? :?

Second, would it be wrong to tap into a neighbor's wireless connection to download the files? :mrgreen:

Third, ctmagnus, a bootable CD sounds nice but my BIOS won't support booting from CDs - only floppys and a HD. :(

What I gather so far:

RedHat Linux is the way to go, and downloading over dialup would take an insane amount of time. 8) As for broadband, this link says it all (http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-5060701.html?tag=rn).

[ctmagnus]

Someone commented that RedHat's previous versions may not require as much processor power than their current '9' version. Is this true? :?

Very true. I don't know the previous versions' specs, but I have RH7.2 installed (not running at the moment due to insanely long boottimes on this particular hardware) on a 486 w/32MB RAM.

Second, would it be wrong to tap into a neighbor's wireless connection to download the files? :mrgreen:

This constitutes theft of service. Same as stealing cable. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Third, ctmagnus, a bootable CD sounds nice but my BIOS won't support booting from CDs - only floppys and a HD. :(

D'oh! Forgot about that issue. :oops: It can be done with a bootable floppy. I did it on the aforementioned 486.

[DimensionZero]

Heh, I bet if you talk to your neighbour they'll let you borrow their connection. I'm sure they'll feel your pain. :D

Also, in regards to using an older version, I'm not sure how much more you're gonna be able to get in performance... Just besure to disable any useless services and I'd figure you'll be okay.. XWindows is what requires all the resources, so if you stick to the console you should be alrite. The only time it'll hurt is when you're compiling your software.

[easylife]

The only time it'll hurt is when you're compiling your software.
...which brings me to my next question: I noticed that Apache, PHP, MySQL and so forth already had compiled binaries for Windows, but I don't think they're compiled for Linux.. does Linux have a built-in compiler? 8O

[Janak Parekh]

...which brings me to my next question: I noticed that Apache, PHP, MySQL and so forth already had compiled binaries for Windows, but I don't think they're compiled for Linux.. does Linux have a built-in compiler? 8O
Huh? A distribution comes with precompiled packages of most of the above. (Maybe not MySQL, but you can download binary packages for them...)

And yes, Linux comes with a full set of development tools built-in.

--janak

[easylife]

Thank You Janak! :D I thought that traditionally Linux software came in some .tar.gz format or something like that that had to be compiled to run. I also had no idea that Linux came with Apache and PHP - I was planning on adding those later. Finally, I'm glad that Linux has a compiler built in. No kidding, I once tried to download a compiler for Windows and got its SOURCE CODE. 8O

So thanks to everyone for their input, I think I will try RH 7.2 by suggestion of ctmagnus along with Samba (file/print share for Windows networks) suggested by DimensionZero. If I have any more questions I will post them here. Once again, thanks to you all for your input! :D

EDIT:NO! I just got one of those CNET emails that talks about learning Linux and links to a comparison between RedHat and SUSE! So now I have another major distribution to look into, and from their website it looks promising. Anybody have personal experience with SuSE Linux? :?

[Janak Parekh]

The one thing about 7.2 is that some of the components are vulnerable. If you have the time, you could give 9 a shot anyway. :)

Re distros: Red Hat certainly isn't the only distro. Debian (www.debian.org) is also popular for server boxes, and SuSE is pretty good. Red Hat is convenient because of its popularity and easy setup process, although SuSE is not far behind. (Debian is a bit harder IMHO.)

--janak

[easylife]

The one thing about 7.2 is that some of the components are vulnerable. If you have the time, you could give 9 a shot anyway. :)

Re distros: Red Hat certainly isn't the only distro. Debian (www.debian.org) is also popular for server boxes, and SuSE is pretty good. Red Hat is convenient because of its popularity and easy setup process, although SuSE is not far behind. (Debian is a bit harder IMHO.)
Yeah, I was actually going to go with Debian for a while because of its relatively low requirments for your computer. Plus it had been ported for the ARM processor so the possibility of installing it on a Pocket PC was always there. I was a bit put off that they code-named their releases after Toy Story characters and the fact they they weren't a particularly popular distribution. I will investigate further - I'm only going to download once. :wink:

I have a question about processor compatability. I have to possible computers to run it on, a 486 and a Pentium 100. I was planning on the Pentium (isn't it a 586?) for Linux. SuSE lists "i386" and "x86_64". To me, this looks like a 386 processor or a 64-bit x86 processor, of which I have neither. :| Is my interpretation of these correct?

[Janak Parekh]

Actually, an i386-based distribution is better, as the 486 is downwards-compatible with the 386. Code compiled for a Pentium may not run on a 486.

--janak

[easylife]

Will x86 work with Pentium? 486? What about the "_64" addition? Does this mean 64-bit? I know the 386 version might run but I would like one that's optimized for the processor if possible. :?

[Janak Parekh]

x86 usually means 386 and above. 486-optimized isn't that different from 386-optimized; if you really want optimized, get Gentoo (www.gentoo.org), which builds from source -- but it will take days to compile and install. Forget about -64. ;)

--janak

[easylife]

All right, I have gone to the following distribution sites and here is my overall take on them: Gentoo: I like the idea of compiling my own OS a lot, but unfortunately to install you need to be able to boot from a CD. :? SuSE: Nice, easy download and install and is compatable with my Pentium (not 486). Finalist! :) Slackware: Don't know much about it other than ZipSlack (http://www.slackware.com/zipslack/), which has minimum system requirments and is only 100MB - easy to download! 8O Debian: Just another Linux distribution - not much visible support Mandrake: System requirments are a tall order - wants financial contribution! :| RedHat: Certainly the most heard about distribution (even my father has heard of RedHat! 8O ) - RH9 has too high system requirments, but previous versions will work well. Finalist! :) So I guess it's SuSE or RedHat... unless there are a few more distributions you'd like to toss this way before I make my descision. 8) Please, if you know anything about or have personal experience with ANY Linux distribution comment here! Thanks to all who have helped so far! :D

[ctmagnus]

Curious: do eihher of the machines support wake-on-lan?

[easylife]

Curious: do eihher of the machines support wake-on-lan?
Wake-on-LAN? Do you mean the ability to turn them on over a network? Unfortunately no, the software has no control over the power of the device. I have to turn it on (and off) manually. :wink:

[easylife]

Sorry to "dig up" this thread from all of four days ago but I still haven't decided which one to go ahead to download. If someone could just say "foo verson biz will suit your needs then I would be happy. I tend to be a very indecisive person so I need a favor and have someone examine what I need and make an executive desicion. Please. :D

That said, I have noticed that I require a few more things: I need to be able to install it from DOS. I don't have a bootable CD drive or networking/internet (yet) hooked up to it so a network drive or FTP Internet install is out of the question. Next I should tell you that I have absolutely no data on it at all - I did a fresh format in DOS on it so I don't need a linux version that can be installed on a DOS partition, etc.

So... have at it. I have submitted my thoughts, conjectures, assumptions, etc.. feel free to correct or criticize anything I've said (in this thread :wink: ), and please post your own thoughts and decisions on this topic. Gigabytes take days; weeks on dialup so I need to be absolutely sure that the version I download I can get to work with my PC.

P.S. - Some sites let you download CD images while other sites let you download all the files. Which is better? Which is faster? :?

[JvanEkris]

I use RedHat 9 on two machines. One is a ultra-high speed extreme dependable beast-server that runs almost everything in my house. Its huge. I use it for: GroupWare server Network Monitoring File Server for Windows (Samba can be installed for every Linux distibution) House Control (X10) Mail server Web serverNo problems there......

The other is my laptop. That's a different story. basically i use it for compiling things for the server. It's a 150 Mhz 64 Mb RAM machine, with a 40Gb harddisk. It runs, but it runs slowly. You need minimal 1 Gb of harddisk space to run RH9.

Installing Red Hat (starting from at least 8, but could be 7 as well) is like installing windows. Nice screens etc. It is very simple. As a windows user, it is recommended to install the graphical interface as well. This is a lot more relaxed than a nervous prompt. The prompt can be very frustrating.

Great thing of RedHat and Mandrake is that you DON'T need a compiler installed (it is in the basic package, but if you want an ultrasecure machine you rather wouldn't). They have something called RPM's, a bit like installer packages in windows. Sites like Freshrpm's (www.freshrpms.net), RPMFind (www.rpmfind.net) and SourceForge (www.sourceforge.net) help you to find them. Just download and click, and it's installing. One major disadvantage is that when you install something more complex, you get RPM's needing other RPM's, resulting in a large bulk of RPM's to be downloaded (and you get the feeling you are downloading the internet by hand :(). Installing packages like that is more wizardry then normal usage. But, at least Red Hat (but a lot of other ditributions as well) provide the things you need out of the box (or as an install option during install).

Jaap

[easylife]

Thanks a lot for your feedback JvanEkris! :D I want to be able to do a lot of the things you're doing on your PC. You mention that at least 1GB needs to be free. I have a hard drive larger than the 500MB one I quoted earlier but I really wanted to be able to physically separate the OS from the HD. Also about the install mode - I require it to be DOS because there is no way to boot other than through a DOS floppy disk.

I am a bit confused about why a compiler would make a Linux installation more insecure than one that didn't have a compiler installed. Can you please clarify the potential dangers of having a compiler installed?

Out of curiosity, what is House Control and GroupWare? :)

Also, could you please give me the overall specs of the machine you're running your server on and how well it works for you. You mention the specs of your laptop which are similar to the specs of my old computer - do you think a web/file server would run well on there? I'm not expecting any more than a trickle of traffic for it. I appreciate the input you have given very much! :D

[JvanEkris]

Well, housecontrol controlls my house (it is called MisterHouse (Misterhouse.sf.net)). It veriefies the status of my central heating and alarm-system, and plays with the lights while i'm at home.

Groupware is some nice playthingy if you are into it. It's full name is OpenGroupWare (www.opengroupware.org), and basically it can act as a Microsoft Exchange Server. It provides you with scheduling, contacts and to-do lists. I'm trying to obtain an Outlook client for it, but several other projects are under way as well, including a sync through the internet :), directly to the server. This way, my girlfriend can see my calander as well (on the server). It all has a nice web-interface, so it is pretty good to use. All this is stored nicely in an open databaseformat, so other applications (like my house-control) knows when to expect me or my girlfriend back :).

About installing. As i understand it, you dan't have a CD-player that allows you to boot from it. That's no problem. On the First CD of RedHat, there is a special Image file, that allows you to create a bootfloppy. That floppy is designed to boot a minimal Linux configuration, initialize the system, detect the CD-player, and let the install-cd's take over from there. I did that with my antique laptop as well (it has a CD-player through a SCSI PCMCIA card). Sometimes you need a special driver-disk. For those images are also available.

One of the great things of Linux is that it does not matter if the installation is on more than one disk. A normal installation has about 5 partitions in use, but they could be on different (smaller) disks without any problem.

Well, a compiler introduces a risk, because it allows other people to write applications on your machine and then compile them, and afterwards execute them, rendering all limitations on execution of certain applications useless. Although they have to gain access to your system first (Linux has excellent firewalls installed by default to prevent this) it is a risk. If a C-compiler isn't present, they can't execute applications they have written themselves. Because C can go really deep in such a system, it sets a door wide open. On a machine that is sealed of correctly, you can't do anything as a regular user. Using C, you can bypass this system by writing the application that you wan't to execute yourself. By using RPM's, you don't need a compiler, and the most used applications have RPM's available.

The big server is big, but it monitors a large network quite closely. It's a 1.8 Ghz Athlon (slowest you can buy today), 1 Gb RAM. The system itself is on a 40 Gb IDE drive. The filesystem for the fileserver is on a RAID-1 (=mirrored) array of 100Gb usefull space (i.e. these are two 100 Gb drives, combined into 1 mirrored drive). I must admit, the Athlon is a bit overkill, as well as the memory. Average usage is about 5% of CPU-time.......

Well, i think that it depends on how patient your audience is. When using the web to go to my server it is there directly, no problem. I must say, apache is not running on my laptop (it is only installed to make things compile :)), so i have no real experience there. But when i comapre it to SSH, i would be a bit worried. SSH is a remote login to a server. When i use SSH to my server, it is there at an instant. When i login to my laptop, it takes about a second. So that's a big difference.

Jaap